Blog:Case Reviews/Oregon Appellate Court 09-28-11 - Revision history

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:00:20Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T01:56:56Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:21:16Z

Importing text file

New page

''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:''
* Hearsay - Forfeiture by Wrongdoing
* Expert Testimony - Cross
* Relevance - The Reid Technique
* Identity Theft - Merger - Separate Victims

===Hearsay - Forfeiture by Wrongdoing===

Hearsay statements are admissible against a defendant who, through wrongful conduct, intends to cause, and does cause, a witness to be unavailable. OEC 804(3)(g). Causing unavailability does not need to be the sole, or even the primary purpose of the defendant. It would be illogical to allow a defendant to gain back the confrontation rights he lost for an evil motive because he has an additional and even greater evil motive. Moreover, because the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception is firmly rooted, it does not require particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Here, parts of a murder victim's notes about defendant were admissible because defendant shot the victim as police were arriving and part of his intent was to prevent her from going to court.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139011.pdf ''State v. Supanchick'']

===Expert Testimony - Cross===

The party cross-examining an expert may bring out facts which the expert reviewed to form his or her opinion, even if those facts would not otherwise be admissible and were not reviewed on direct. Here, defendant's PTSD expert in a murder case was allowed to be cross-examined with emails in which defendant was consistently demeaning toward the victim, his wife. The emails were part of the materials on which the doctor relied in forming his opinion and they were relevant to the defendant's overall state of mind.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139011.pdf ''State v. Supanchick'']

===Relevance - The Reid Technique===

Testimony regarding the Reid Technique of police interrogation isn't relevant unless the defense establishes what the Reid Technique is and why it matters. Here, the officer who did the interrogation testified he didn't use Reid, the expert testified he didn't use the full Reid Technique and no evidence established what the Reid Technique was. The only important aspect of this part of the opinion is to note that the court did '''not''' rule that testimony regarding the Reid Technique is generally inadmissible. It was inadmissible under the particular circumstances of this case.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139011.pdf ''State v. Supanchick'']

===Identity Theft - Merger - Separate Victims===

Identity Thefts predicated on the possession of multiple IDs from multiple victims at a single time do not merge into a single crime. Each person whose identity is misappropriated is a victim because victims of identity theft include those who suffer a risk of loss from the exposure of their identification to misuse. See [/ID_Theft,_Court_of_Appeals_and_Merger Ryan's article] on this case.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139246.pdf ''State v. Mullen'']

{{wl-publish: 2011-09-27 21:00:00 -0700 | abassos }}

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ===Identity Theft - Merger - Separate Victims===
-Identity Thefts predicated on the possession of multiple IDs from multiple victims at a single time do not merge into a single crime. Each person whose identity is misappropriated is a victim because victims of identity theft include those who suffer a risk of loss from the exposure of their identification to misuse. See [[Blog:Main/ID_Theft,_Court_Of_Appeals_And_Merger|Ryan's article]]  on this case.
+Identity Thefts predicated on the possession of multiple IDs from multiple victims at a single time do not merge into a single crime. Each person whose identity is misappropriated is a victim because victims of identity theft include those who suffer a risk of loss from the exposure of their identification to misuse. See [[Blog:Main/ID_Theft,_Court_of_Appeals_and_Merger|Ryan's article]]  on this case.
 [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139246.pdf ''State v. Mullen'']
 {{wl-publish: 2011-09-27 21:00:00 -0700 | abassos }}