Oregon Appellate Court, March 11, 2020

by: Rankin Johnson • March 21, 2020 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

EVIDENCE -403 balancing

Defendant's communications with sex-offense victim were admissible to show sexual interest in victim. Affirmed.

Defendant was accused of sex offenses against three different girls, all younger than 14.

The state sought to offer evidence of defendant's Facebook communications with one of the victims, evidence of his communications with others that suggested he had sex with children in the Philippines, and evidence of the hidden cameras. The court admitted some of that evidence and excluded some. Although the trial court did not expressly conduct 403 balancing, that requirement was raised in pre-trial pleadings and the colloquy demonstrated that the court adequately considered the issue.

Before trial, defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to use a child in a sexually explicit display and invasion of privacy, based on evidence that he had placed a camera in a bathroom used by one of the victims. During trial, one victim, C, testified that defendant had taken nude pictures of her. In response to a cross-examination question, C said that defendant had taken a picture of a mole in case it turned out to be cancer. The state also played a recording of an interview with defendant when he gave innocent explanations for the pictures. The state again the court to admit evidence of the hidden camera to show defendant's sexual purpose, and the court agreed.

During the defense case, the defense offered evidence that police had failed to investigate thoroughly. In response, the state offered evidence that there had been other victims captured by the hidden camera and had followed up with them. The court reasoned that the defendant had opened the door.

Defendant asked the victim to send him nude pictures and referred to how she could work for a new iPhone, to which she responded that she didn't want to do that stuff again and it had given her nightmares.

State v. Rockett 302 Or App 655 (March 11, 2020) (Armstrong) (Washington County, Erwin)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)

XXXSEARCH AND SEIZURE - Automobile exception

Automobile exception supported search, notwithstanding that police manufactured situation leading to stop.

State v. XXX 302 Or App XXX (March 11, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)