Oregon Appellate Ct - July 22, 2015
by: Abassos, Brook Reinhard, Matthew Watkins, Jonathan Heritage, Joseph Hampton, Robert Taylor, Sean McGuire, Kit Taylor and April Yates • July 22, 2015 • no comments
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
A defendant is entitled to make an initial showing of a witness’s bias or interest. Only after the defense has made such a preliminary showing does the trial court have any discretion to exclude additional evidence of bias or interest. The trial court erred by preventing the defendant from cross-examining the witness regarding juvenile adjudications and the fact that she was currently in custody; such evidence could indicate that the witness had reasons to falsely testify or was vulnerable to pressure from the state. The Court of Appeals holds the trial court’s error requires reversal because it prevented the jury from hearing a qualitatively different reason to distrust the witness’ testimony. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153242.pdf State v Nacoste], 272 Or App 460 (2015). | A defendant is entitled to make an initial showing of a witness’s bias or interest. Only after the defense has made such a preliminary showing does the trial court have any discretion to exclude additional evidence of bias or interest. The trial court erred by preventing the defendant from cross-examining the witness regarding juvenile adjudications and the fact that she was currently in custody; such evidence could indicate that the witness had reasons to falsely testify or was vulnerable to pressure from the state. The Court of Appeals holds the trial court’s error requires reversal because it prevented the jury from hearing a qualitatively different reason to distrust the witness’ testimony. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153242.pdf State v Nacoste], 272 Or App 460 (2015). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Dependency – Allegations in a Termination Petition That Go Beyond the Scope of the Original Basis for Jurisdiction Do Not Deprive Father of Notice Where Original Allegations Sufficient for Termination | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this case, where Father contended that DHS had deprived him of constitutionally adequate notice at his termination of parental rights hearing, the Court finds five of the allegations alleged in the termination petition were "materially indistinguishable" from those used by the court to establish initial jurisdiction, and therefore affirmed the trial court without reaching the merits of Father's appeal. Father had argued the grounds for termination were different than those in the initial jurisdiction petition, citing holdings in DHS v. GE, 243 Or App 471 (2011), DHS v. NMS, 246 Or App 284 (2011) and DHS v ARS, 256 Or App 653 (2013). But the Court, analyzing the case de novo, finds that DHS proved the original five allegations by clear and convincing evidence, and that they are sufficient on their own to terminate Father's parental rights. Dept. of Human Services v. J.C.H., 272 Or App 413 (2015) | ||
Revision as of 08:38, July 24, 2015
Evidence - A Defendant is Entitled to Cross on Bias, Even When the Bias Relates to Otherwise Protected Juvenile Adjudications
A defendant is entitled to make an initial showing of a witness’s bias or interest. Only after the defense has made such a preliminary showing does the trial court have any discretion to exclude additional evidence of bias or interest. The trial court erred by preventing the defendant from cross-examining the witness regarding juvenile adjudications and the fact that she was currently in custody; such evidence could indicate that the witness had reasons to falsely testify or was vulnerable to pressure from the state. The Court of Appeals holds the trial court’s error requires reversal because it prevented the jury from hearing a qualitatively different reason to distrust the witness’ testimony. State v Nacoste, 272 Or App 460 (2015).
Dependency – Allegations in a Termination Petition That Go Beyond the Scope of the Original Basis for Jurisdiction Do Not Deprive Father of Notice Where Original Allegations Sufficient for Termination
In this case, where Father contended that DHS had deprived him of constitutionally adequate notice at his termination of parental rights hearing, the Court finds five of the allegations alleged in the termination petition were "materially indistinguishable" from those used by the court to establish initial jurisdiction, and therefore affirmed the trial court without reaching the merits of Father's appeal. Father had argued the grounds for termination were different than those in the initial jurisdiction petition, citing holdings in DHS v. GE, 243 Or App 471 (2011), DHS v. NMS, 246 Or App 284 (2011) and DHS v ARS, 256 Or App 653 (2013). But the Court, analyzing the case de novo, finds that DHS proved the original five allegations by clear and convincing evidence, and that they are sufficient on their own to terminate Father's parental rights. Dept. of Human Services v. J.C.H., 272 Or App 413 (2015)
