Oregon Appellate Ct - Nov 30, 2016
by: Sara Werboff • December 5, 2016 • no comments
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
| − | * | + | *Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| − | Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement | + | '''Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement''' |
The court holds that an officer's testimony conveying a hearsay statement from the complainant that he did not know the defendant was inadmissible as a prior consistent statement. Defendant was convicted of theft for taking the complainant's video poker cash credit. Defendant said that she was having an affair with the complainant and he gave the voucher to her. The complainant testified that he had seen defendant around, but otherwise didn't know her. A police officer testified that the complainant told him that he did not know the defendant. The court concludes that the officer's hearsay statement was not admissible as a prior consistent statement because the statement was not made before the complainant had a motive to fabricate and the error was not harmless. | The court holds that an officer's testimony conveying a hearsay statement from the complainant that he did not know the defendant was inadmissible as a prior consistent statement. Defendant was convicted of theft for taking the complainant's video poker cash credit. Defendant said that she was having an affair with the complainant and he gave the voucher to her. The complainant testified that he had seen defendant around, but otherwise didn't know her. A police officer testified that the complainant told him that he did not know the defendant. The court concludes that the officer's hearsay statement was not admissible as a prior consistent statement because the statement was not made before the complainant had a motive to fabricate and the error was not harmless. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159767.pdf State v. Hernandez], 282 Or App 627 (2016) (Per Curiam) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159767.pdf State v. Hernandez], 282 Or App 627 (2016) (Per Curiam) | ||
Revision as of 21:52, December 5, 2016
State v. Nelson, 282 Or App 427 (2016) (Ortega, P.J.)
State v. Lockridge, 282 Or App 414 (2016) (Hadlock, C.J.)
DHS v. K.C., 282 Or App 448 (2016) (Ortega, P.J.)
State v. J.J.-M., 282 Or App 459 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)
State v. Macias, 282 Or App 473 (2016) (Sercombe, P.J.)
DHS v. B.J.J., 282 Or App 488 (2016) (Duncan, P.J.)
DHS v. L.D.K., 282 Or App 510 (2016) (Duncan, P.J.)
Boyles v. Myrick, 282 Or App 517 (2016) (Lagesen, J.)
State v. Arreola, 282 Or App 555 (2016) (Tookey, J.)
State v. Eastman, 282 Or App 563 (2016) (Garrett, J.)
State v. Almarez-Martinez, 282 Or App 576 (2016) (Flynn, J.)
State v. Pobor, 282 Or App 600 (2016) (DeHoog, J.)
State v. Potter, 282 Or App 605 (2016) (De Muniz, S.J.)
State v. Westcott, 282 Or App 614 (2016) (Schuman, S.J.)
State v. W.C.A., 282 Or App 622 (2016) (Per Curiam)
DHS v. J.C.S., 282 Or App 624 (2016) (Per Curiam)
Per Curiam - Hearsay Inadmissible as Prior Consistent Statement
The court holds that an officer's testimony conveying a hearsay statement from the complainant that he did not know the defendant was inadmissible as a prior consistent statement. Defendant was convicted of theft for taking the complainant's video poker cash credit. Defendant said that she was having an affair with the complainant and he gave the voucher to her. The complainant testified that he had seen defendant around, but otherwise didn't know her. A police officer testified that the complainant told him that he did not know the defendant. The court concludes that the officer's hearsay statement was not admissible as a prior consistent statement because the statement was not made before the complainant had a motive to fabricate and the error was not harmless.
State v. Hernandez, 282 Or App 627 (2016) (Per Curiam)
