<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17095" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011>Greetings:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>Many of you may have
seen this case when it originally came down from the Supreme Court last year.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>However, I thought
it was worth sending out again. It serves as a good reminder to prosecutors for
purposes of charging, officers for purposes of investigating and gathering
specific information, and for other allied professionals to understand the
particularities of "DV" law that we often face.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011><EM>State v.
Rader</EM>, 348 Or 81, 228 p3d 552 (2010)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011><U><STRONG>Facts:
</STRONG></U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>Defendant and the
victim had a loud argument in their small two-bedroom apartment while the
victim's three-year old daughter was in her bedroom, door ajar, watching
television. The victim went into the child's bedroom, turned up the TV to
distract the child, and the the D closed the child's door after she came
out.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>D then headbutted
the V, making a "very loud" sound, and the V's head struck the door "very
loudly." The V cried out and fell to the floor. The State charged the D with
felony fourth-degree assault, on the ground that the assault was "witnessed" by
the child. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>At trial, D moved
for a JOA, arguing that the state failed to prove that the child witnessed the
assault. Trial court rejected the argument. <EM>(Good Job, Trial
Court!)</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>On appeal, Court of
Appeals reversed. <EM>(Sigh)</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>The Supreme Court
allowed review. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011><STRONG><U>HELD:</U></STRONG> 1) A child "directly
perceives," and thereby witnesses, an assault if the child "contemporaneously is
aware through any of the child's senses that an assault is occurring--i.e., that
one person is causing injury to another." </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>2) Where the state
alleges that a child perceived an assault by hearing it, proof that the child
was aware that the sound arose from assaultive conduct suffices; the state need
not prove that the child was aware of the details or specifics of the assault.
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011>3) Here, a rational
trier of fact could infer that the "very loud" sounds of the assault were
audible in the child's bedroom, and that the child was aware that the sounds
arose from an assault. The child need not testify that she perceived the
assault, but instead the state can rely on the "close spatial and temporal
connection among the child, the verbal confrontation, and the assault that
immediately followed," or introduce "evidence of the child's reaction after the
assault occurs to prove that the child was aware of the assault."
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=803064918-26032011><STRONG><U>Just a
thought:</U></STRONG> It seems like the court's rationale vis-a-vis how to prove
that a child "perceived" an assault (that is, by circumstantial evidence), could
also be applied in proving injury where we don't have great statements (or no
statements at all..). However, clearly it's always important to obtain all
direct evidence we can to support the elements of the crime(s) we hope to
charge.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=803064918-26032011></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></BODY></HTML>