Oregon Supreme Court - July 25, 2013

by: Zara Lukens and Abassos • July 25, 2013 • no comments

Certification of service of a restraining order does not trigger confrontation rights

A document primarily created for an administrative purpose cannot be rendered testimonial merely by the possibility that it might be used in a later criminal prosecution. Here, defendant’s confrontation right under Article I, section 11 was not triggered by the deputy sheriff's certification of service of the restraining order. The certificate was an official record whose content was confined to a matter that the deputy sheriff was bound by an administrative duty to report, and it did not contain investigative or gratuitous facts. State v. Copeland,___ Or.___ (2013).

Privacy Requirement of OEC 412 is Constitutional

OEC 412’s requirement that a hearing on the admissibility of evidence of an alleged rape victim’s past sexual conduct take place in private does not violate Oregon or U.S. Constitutions. Article 1, section 10 and 11 of the Oregon Constitution do not extend to pretrial hearings on admissibility. Moreover, the privacy rule does not implicate the following values with which the Sixth Amendment is concerned:

(1) to ensure a fair trial, (2) to remind the prosecutor and judge of their responsibility to the accused and the importance of their functions, (3) to encourage witnesses to come forward, and (4) to discourage perjury.

State v. MacBale, ___Or.___ (2013).