<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">(From DOJ’s Appellate Division Legal Update)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Prosecutors:</u></b> If you have cross-examined Dr. Julien, can you please email me with the case information (defendant’s name, case number, jurisdiction, year), brief description of the case facts, and about what topic/issue Dr.
Julien testified? We get quite a few requests for information about Dr. Julien. I have some case information, but I know that there is a lot more out there. THANKS!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>EVIDENCE—EXPERT TESTIMONY (OEC 702):</b> In prosecution for domestic-assault<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">offenses in which defendant claimed that he had taken numerous drugs and had no<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">memory of the incident, <b><i>the trial court committed reversible error when it precluded<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Dr. Julien from testifying that defendant, due to his drug use, may have lacked an ability to<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>form the charged “criminal intent” during the assaults.<o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>State v. Hazlett</i>, 269 Or App 483, __ P3d __ (2015) (Lane) (AAG Dave Thompson).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>FACTS:</u></b> Based on defendant’s violent assault and sexual abuse of the victim, a woman with whom he had<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">an intimate relationship, he was charged with first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, first degree<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">sexual abuse, fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence, strangulation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">constituting domestic violence, unlawful use of a weapon, and harassment. At trial, defendant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">testified that he and the victim had had consensual sex the night before the incident and that the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">next day he had taken a number of drugs, including what he thought to be liquid morphine,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Oxycodone, and Xanax. He testified that the drugs had caused him to pass out and that he had<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">no memory of the incident, only partial memory of someone other than the victim being present,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and no memory of the police or his arrest. Following defendant’s testimony, defense counsel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">called Dr. Robert Julien, a retired anesthesiologist, to testify about the drugs that defendant had<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">testified he took and their effects. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The trial court (Judge Debra K. Vogt) held an OEC 104 hearing to determine Julien’s qualifications as an expert.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julien stated that he held advanced degrees in pharmacology, which is the science of how drugs affect living organisms,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">and had done research in psychopharmacology, the study of how drugs affect the brain and behavior. He<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">noted that he had testified in court as an expert in toxicology pharmacology around 60 times.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Defense counsel asked Julien, hypothetically, what symptoms a person of defendant’s size would<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">show if the person had taken the drugs defendant said he had ingested with some amount of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">alcohol. Julien testified that he would expect the person to appear sedated, with slurred and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">garbled speech, glassy eyes, droopy eyelids, confusion, and trouble standing up. He also said<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that he would expect blackout, which he explained is a loss of memory and is “essentially drug induced<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">dementia, very similar to what you would see in somebody who had organic dementia<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">with a disease such as Alzheimer’s.” Julien cited an article he had written—“To Intend or Not to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Intend: That is the Question.”—in which he had explained the difference between a person who<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">is unconscious and a person who is in a state of drug-induced dementia. The latter person,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">according to Julien, is unable to form new memories and that affects the person’s ability to form<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">intent. Julien gave the following examples: “If you’ve had a Benzodiazepine for your<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">colonoscopy and you don’t remember your colonoscopy. If you’ve signed a contract during that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">time, that would be an invalid contract because you were drug demented as indexed by the fact<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that you couldn’t form memory.” After hearing Julien’s testimony, the court allowed him to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">testify in front of the jury about the drugs defendant had testified to taking, the symptoms they<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">produce, and whether the description of defendant’s behavior on the night of the alleged crimes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">was consistent with those symptoms. But the court prohibited Julien from testifying about<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">defendant’s ability to form criminal intent, concluding that he was not qualified to opine about<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that. The jury found defendant guilty on the charges. He appealed, contending that the court<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">erred when it prohibit Julien from testifying about his ability to form criminal intent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Held:</u></b> Reversed and remanded (Nakamoto, J.). The trial court erred by excluding the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">proffered evidence. [1] Defendant sufficiently preserved the issue he raised on appeal:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although Julien did not specifically testify during the OEC 104 hearing that a person suffering<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">from drug-induced dementia is unable to form criminal intent and the defense made no offer of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">proof in that regard, “Julien’s testimony, as well defense counsel’s arguments, established that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Julien had an opinion about the effect of dementia on a person’s ability to form intent and what<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that opinion would be. … On the whole, the record demonstrates that the court understood the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">substance of the evidence that defendant sought to introduce through Julien’s testimony.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[2] “The record demonstrates that Julien had education, experience, and knowledge that qualified<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">him to testify about the effect of drug-induced dementia, or blackout, on a person’s ability to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">form intent,” despite the fact that Julien was not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Under OEC 702,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“a witness is not assumed to be disqualified merely because the person lacks a particular<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">educational or professional degree.” [3] “As to the counts requiring the state to prove that<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">defendant acted either knowingly or intentionally, the trial court’s error was not harmless.” But<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">the court affirmed the one conviction that based on a “recklessly” culpable mental state.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>