<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">This is a case in which the investigating detective was allowed to offer expert testimony on why a child victim might not disclose right away. This testimony was allowed to rebut the inference by the defense that the child did not disclose
right away because the child was lying. The same principles could be applied in offering expert testimony through an officer in a DV case about why a victim,
<i>generally</i>, might engage in ‘counterintuitive’ behavior like returning to an abusive relationship, minimizing the abuse, etc. You’re going to have to walk a fine line in offering testimony that doesn’t trigger a
<i>Brown/O’Key</i> analysis but it’s still a great case for us!<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>From DOJ’s Appellate Division Legal Update:<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>EVIDENCE—EXPERT TESTIMONY: Trial court did not err by allowing detective to<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>testify as an expert about delayed reporting, based on the detective’s training and<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>experience.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>State v. Althof</i></b>, 273 Or App 342, __ P3d __ (2015) (Curry) (AAG Doug Petrina).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Defendant was convicted of five counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">second-degree unlawful penetration. On appeal, he challenged: (1) the trial court’s<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">admission of uncharged misconduct evidence without adhering to the procedures<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">established by <i>State v. Leistiko</i>, 352 Or 172 (2012), and
<i>State v. Pitt</i>, 352 Or 566 (2012);<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) the trial court’s determination that the investigating detective was qualified under<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">OEC 702 to provide expert testimony about delayed reporting; and (3) the trial court’s<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">refusal to instruct the jury that it was required to reach unanimous verdicts on the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">charges, and its subsequent acceptance of non-unanimous verdicts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Held</i>: Affirmed (Lagesen, P.J.). [1] Defendant’s arguments related to the<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">admission of uncharged misconduct evidence were not preserved and do not qualify as<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">plain error. [2] The detective was qualified to prove his testimony about delayed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">reporting by virtue of his training and experience. [3] Defendant’s challenge to the nonunanimous<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">verdicts is foreclosed by <i>Apodaca v. Oregon</i>, 406 US 404 (1972).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153292.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153292.pdf</a><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>