<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><b>Prosecutors: </b>The recent holding in <i>Everett</i> re: Defendant’s right to cross-examine and court’s broad discretion to determine what constitutes adequate cross-examination could be helpful in DV cases with recalcitrant victim-witnesses (i.e., we’ve all had the experience of the “cooperative” victim/witness who may testify minimally (but effectively) on direct and then respond on cross-examination w/ “I don’t know, or I don’t remember, or “I don’t want to answer that question”). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>INMATE PROPERLY CONVICTED OF SOLICITATION TO COMMIT AGGRAVATED MURDER FOR<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b>ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE ANOTHER INMATE TO PASS INFORMATION TO BIKER GANG;<o:p></o:p></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u>TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO STRIKE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY ON DIRECT WHEN HE<o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><u>INVOKED FIFTH ON CROSS-EXAMINATION<o:p></o:p></u></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><i>State v. Everett</i></b>, __ Or App __, __ P3d __ (March 28, 2012) (Clackamas) (AAG Doug<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Zier). Defendant attempted to run over Deputy Moss. Then, while in jail awaiting trial, he<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>attempted to solicit Piatt, who was an enforcer for “the Outsiders” (an outlaw motorcycle gang)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>to murder Moss. But Piatt informed the police and testified before the grand jury, which indicted<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>defendant for solicitation to commit aggravated murder of Moss, listing Piatt as a witness. While<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>awaiting trial on this new solicitation charge, defendant met Van Alstine and solicited him to<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>deliver incriminating evidence to the Outsiders motorcycle gang showing that Piatt was a police<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>informer; defendant told Van Alstine that the Outsiders would “take care of” Piatt so he would<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>not appear in court. But Van Alstine also was an informer, and defendant was charged with<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>solicitation to commit aggravated murder of Piatt, too. <i>At trial, Piatt testified at trial, admitted he<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>had engaged in illegal activities as “enforcer,” but when he was asked a question on cross examination<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>whether he had ever killed anyone, he invoked the Fifth and refused to answer.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>Defendant moved to strike Piatt’s testimony or for a mistrial, but the trial court denied those<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>motions. Defendant was convicted of those charges.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>Held</i>: Affirmed (Nakamoto, J.). [1] The trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>for a judgment of acquittal on the charge that he solicited Van Alstine to murder Piatt. Although<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>defendant intended that Van Alstine to be only a messenger to the Outsiders rather than the<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>killer, if Val Alstine had provided the information he knowingly would have been an accomplice.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>“As a matter of law, a person commits the crime of solicitation when that person solicits an<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>intermediary to procure a third party to commit the intended crime so long as the intermediary is<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>aware of that intended crime<i>.” [2] “Trial courts have broad discretion to control the presentation<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>of evidence, including the discretion to strike the testimony of a witness who refuses to answer<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>questions on cross-examination or to impose a less onerous sanction when appropriate. Our<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>review of the trial court's denial of a mistrial is also for abuse of discretion because the trial court<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>is in the best position to assess and to rectify the potential prejudice to the defendant.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>[3] “When a witness refuses to answer questions on cross-examination that are necessary to test<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>the witness’s direct testimony, the trial court has discretion to strike the witness’s testimony<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>because it undermines the trier of fact’s ability to rely on the witness’s direct testimony.<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>Whether the court should strike the witness’s testimony depends on whether the question directly<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>relates to the subject matter of the witness’s direct examination or relates to a collateral matter.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>[4] “Given the attenuated relevance of the proposed question and possible answer and<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>defendant’s otherwise unfettered ability to cross-examine Piatt, the trial court’s exclusion of the<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>question did not require it to strike all of Piatt's testimony.” [5] Defendant was not entitled under<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>Crawford v. Washington </i><i>to have Piatt’s testimony stricken based on his refusal to answer the<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>question: “Piatt’s trial testimony was not an out-of-court statement, so Crawford does not apply<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>to it [and] Piatt was available for cross-examination and was, in fact, cross-examined about his<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>direct testimony.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://courts.oregon.gov/Publications/A140675.pdf">http://courts.oregon.gov/Publications/A140675.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>REMEMBER ALSO:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><i>(Uncooperative victim/witness)</i> The case that I always cite is <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>State v. Sullivan</span></em>, 217 Or App 208 (2007) (fact that cross-examination was not <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>effective</span></em> does not mean that defendant lacked that opportunity; victim's lack of memory did not mean that defendant was denied opportunity for cross-examination). There's also (slightly more recently) <em><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>State v. Bumgarner</span></em>, 219 Or App 617 (2008) (holding the same thing). <o:p></o:p></p></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>