<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17095" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>
<P align=left>A</FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>DMISSION OF HEARSAY STATEMENTS REVERSIBLE ERROR
BECAUSE STATE DID NOT</P>
<P align=left>ESTABLISH DECLARANT WAS </FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=4><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4>“</FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>UNAVAILABLE</FONT></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=4>”</P></FONT></FONT><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<P align=left>State v. Simmons</B></I></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">, 241
Or App __, __ P3d __ (March 16, 2011) (Linn) (AAG René</P>
<P align=left>Holmes). Police officers responded to a report of a “melee.” At
the scene, the victim, who had</P>
<P align=left>obviously been assaulted, made statements to the officer
identifying defendant as one of the</P>
<P align=left>assailants. When the victim failed to appear at trial, defendant
objected to admission of the</P>
<P align=left>victim’s statements to the officer. The trial court admitted the
statements after it found that</P>
<P align=left>victim was unavailable, because the state had made a good-faith
effort to secure the victim’s</P>
<P align=left>attendance but had been unable to do so. </FONT><I><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Held</I></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman">: Reversed.
[1] Defendant adequately preserved</P>
<P align=left>his argument that the state had to establish unavailability under
Art I, § 11, even though defense</P>
<P align=left>counsel appeared to conflate the requirements of the evidence code
and the Oregon Constitution.</P>
<P align=left>[2] The state did not establish that the victim was “unavailable.”
The state made only “minimal”</P>
<P align=left>efforts to serve the subpoena: twice relying on the victim’s
expected attendance at court</P>
<P align=left>appearances; made only a “few” telephone calls to the victim’s
attorney; did not make efforts to</P>
<P align=left>locate the victim’s whereabouts until the day before trial;
law-enforcement officers did not go to</P>
<P align=left>the victim’s last known address or seek information from family
members with whom the victim</P>
<P>had previously lived. [3] Erroneously admitting hearsay statements was not
harmless error.</P></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>