<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">Here are a couple of legal updates from the DOJ Appellate division. While these are sex abuse cases, the disputed issues are directly relevant to and common in DV cases.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>EVIDENCE—IMPEACHMENT: In prosecution for sexual abuse of a child, trial court<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>erred when it excluded defendant’s proffered testimony that the victim and her<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>mother were biased because the mother had applied for a U-Visa.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>State v. Real-Galvez</i></b>, 270 Or App 224, __ P3d __ (2015) (Washington)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(AAG Matt Lysne). Based on repeated sexual assaults on the victim, a 15-year-old girl,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">defendant was charged with first-degree sexual abuse and coercion. At trial, he proffered<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">evidence that the victim had a motive to falsely accuse him of sexual abuse so that the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">victim’s mother could gain an immigration benefit (a U-Visa). The trial court (Judge<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thomas Kohl) excluded: (1) cross-examination testimony of the victim that she knew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">her mother was “undocumented”; (2) testimony from a witness (a co-worker with the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">victim’s mother), who said that after she and the victim and victim’s mother had listened<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to a radio program about a woman who reported sexual abuse and obtained an<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">immigration visa as a result, overheard the victim’s mother tell the victim to accuse her<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">father of sexual abuse so that the victim’s mother could obtain a visa; and (3) evidence<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">that the victim’s mother had applied for a U-Visa based on the allegations that defendant<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">had sexually abused the victim. The jury found defendant guilty.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Held</i>: Reversed and remanded (Tookey, J.). The trial court erred when it excluded<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">defendant’s proffered impeachment evidence. [1] Defendant laid a sufficient foundation<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">to show the victim’s possible interest in testifying—specifically, that the victim knew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">about her mother’s immigration status and that alleging sexual abuse could help her<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">mother obtain a U-Visa (<i>i.e. </i>the co-worker’s testimony). “Defendant was not required to<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">show that [the victim] knew or believed that her mother would submit a U-Visa<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">application if [she] accused defendant of sexual abuse.” [2] The error was not harmless.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153489.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153489.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"><b>EVIDENCE—HEARSAY: In prosecution for sexual abuse of a child, when the<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>victim testifies at trial subject to cross-examination, trial court need not determine<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>under OEC 803(18a)(b) whether she is “unavailable.”<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>State v. Bailey</i></b>, 270 Or App 14, __ P3d __ (2015) (Lincoln) (AAG Jeff Payne).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Defendant repeatedly sexually abused a five-year-old girl, and he was charged with<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">numerous sex crimes. At trial, the state presented evidence of interviews of the victim<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">recounting that defendant subjected her to a series of digital penetrations and genital<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">contacts. She testified and was cross-examined, but she could remember only one of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">those incidents. Defendant was found guilty. On appeal, he argued that trial court (Judge<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thomas Branford) erred because, when the victim was unable to remember some<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">incidents, the was required by OEC 803(18a)(b) to determine whether she was<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“available” as a witness, and it failed to do so.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Held</i>: Affirmed (Ortega, P.J.). [1] OEC 803(18a)(b) permits admission of hearsay<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">evidence if the declarant <i>either </i>(1) “testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>or </i>(2) “is unavailable as a witness but was chronologically or mentally<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">under 12 years of age when the statement was made.” Under that exception, a hearsay<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">declarant is “unavailable” if he or she “has a substantial lack of memory of the subject<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">matter of the statement.” [2] Under <i>State v. Lobo</i>, 261 Or App 741 (2014), if the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">declarant testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination, the question of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">unavailability becomes irrelevant. [3] Here, because the victim satisfied the first<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">condition of OEC 803(18a)(b), she did not have to satisfy the second condition and court<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">did not err by not determining her unavailability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153909.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153909.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Note</i>: The Court of Appeals summarily rejected defendant’s argument that the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">victim’s lack of memory prevented effective cross-examination and thus violated his<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>(This could be particularly helpful in DV cases where victims testify that they “can’t remember.”)<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></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>