A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Ct - Oct 26, 2016

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Sara Werboff • October 28, 2016 • no comments

Line 16: Line 16:
 
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159260.pdf State v. Netzler], 281 Or App 822 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)
 
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159260.pdf State v. Netzler], 281 Or App 822 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)
  
 +
 +
Expert Testimony - CARES Interviewer was Expert on Grooming and her Testimony was Not Scientific Evidence
 +
 +
In this sex abuse case, the court upholds testimony from a CARES interviewer as to grooming behavior, concluding that the interviewer was a qualified expert but was not presenting “scientific evidence.” The interviewer explained generally what grooming is, and then characterized that behavior as possible grooming.  The interviewer based that opinion on her experience in conducting over 600 forensic interviews. 
 +
 +
The court concludes that the interviewer’s training and experience provided her with specialized knowledge and the grooming testimony was admissible under OEC 702.  The court further concludes that because the testimony drew its convincing force from the interviewer’s training and experience, and not principles of science, it was not “scientific” testimony that would be subject to heightened foundational requirements. 
  
 
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154810.pdf State v. Henley], 281 Or App 825 (2016) (Egan, J.)
 
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154810.pdf State v. Henley], 281 Or App 825 (2016) (Egan, J.)

Revision as of 14:32, October 29, 2016



State v. Donathan, 281 Or App 781 (2016) (Armstrong, P.J.)


State v. G.A.K., 281 Or App 815 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)


State v. Netzler, 281 Or App 822 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)


Expert Testimony - CARES Interviewer was Expert on Grooming and her Testimony was Not Scientific Evidence

In this sex abuse case, the court upholds testimony from a CARES interviewer as to grooming behavior, concluding that the interviewer was a qualified expert but was not presenting “scientific evidence.” The interviewer explained generally what grooming is, and then characterized that behavior as possible grooming. The interviewer based that opinion on her experience in conducting over 600 forensic interviews.

The court concludes that the interviewer’s training and experience provided her with specialized knowledge and the grooming testimony was admissible under OEC 702. The court further concludes that because the testimony drew its convincing force from the interviewer’s training and experience, and not principles of science, it was not “scientific” testimony that would be subject to heightened foundational requirements.

State v. Henley, 281 Or App 825 (2016) (Egan, J.)


Indictments - Indictment Subject to Heightened Pleading Requirements for ORICO Offenses

In charging under ORICO, ORS 166.720(6) requires the state to allege the individual thefts that defendant was accused of conspiring to commit with particularity and therefore the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s demurrer and motion in arrest of judgment. Note, this case has the same holding as State v. Stout, 281 Or App 263 (2016). Defendant and Stout were co-defendants accused of conspiring to steal farm equipment.

State v. Holloway, 281 Or App 837 (2016) (Tookey, J.)


First-Degree Burglary - Defendant's Own Unlawful Overnight Use of Building Not Sufficient to Render the Building a Dwelling

The court reverses defendant first-degree burglary conviction and holds that defendant’s own overnight occupancy of a boat was not sufficient to show that the boat was a “dwelling.” Police responded to a report that defendant was breaking into boats docked at a marina. Police found defendant in a boat called the “Amy M.” As he was being arrested, defendant told police that he had stayed overnight in that boat on several occasions. At trial, the trial court denied defendant’s MJOA, agreeing with the state’s contention that defendant’s use of the boat as overnight lodging made that boat a dwelling.

The court conducts a statutory analysis and concludes that defendant’s own use of the boat is not alone sufficient to make that boat a dwelling. Although the text of the statute is ambiguous, the context and legislative history show that “the legislature did not intend for a defendant’s own prior, unlawful habitation in a building to convert that building into a dwelling[.]”

State v. Davis, 281 Or App 855 (2016) (Shorr, J.)


Juvenile Dependency - Lack of Service of Dependency Petition

The juvenile court erred when it entered a combined jurisdictional and dispositional judgment at a hearing where mother did not appear and had not been properly served with the summons and dependency petition. DHS concedes that the juvenile court erred in proceeding with the case in her absence and the court reverses both the jurisdictional and dispositional judgment for both mother and father.

DHS v. C.M.R., 281 Or App 886 (2016) (per curiam)