Oregon Supreme Court - December 13, 2012
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Abassos • December 13, 2012 • no comments
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''Admissions of a Party Opponent - Dependency''' | '''Admissions of a Party Opponent - Dependency''' | ||
− | < | + | <summary hidden> |
The out-of-court sexual abuse allegations of a child are not admissible as statements of a party opponent, against father, in a dependency proceeding. OEC 801(4)(b)(A), declaring statements of a party opponent to be non-hearsay, only applies when one party is offering another party's statements against that same party and adverse to a position that party has taken in the proceedings. The child's statements could theoretically be offered by the state against the child, but not against father. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059950.pdf DHS v GDW] | The out-of-court sexual abuse allegations of a child are not admissible as statements of a party opponent, against father, in a dependency proceeding. OEC 801(4)(b)(A), declaring statements of a party opponent to be non-hearsay, only applies when one party is offering another party's statements against that same party and adverse to a position that party has taken in the proceedings. The child's statements could theoretically be offered by the state against the child, but not against father. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059950.pdf DHS v GDW] | ||
{{wl-publish: 2012-12-13 10:47:28 -0800 | abassos }} | {{wl-publish: 2012-12-13 10:47:28 -0800 | abassos }} |
Revision as of 17:18, December 27, 2012