<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=iso-8859-1">
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 5 5 3 3 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" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">From DOJ’s Appellate Update:
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">EVIDENCE—I</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">MPEACHMENT</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:
In prosecution for domestic assault, the trial court<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">properly precluded defendant from impeaching the victim with evidence of a prior<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">allegedly false accusation against him.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Taylor</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 275 Or App
962, __ P3d __ (2015) (Washington) (AIC Jennifer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Lloyd). Based on an incident of domestic abuse, defendant was charged with fourth degree<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">assault. At trial, defendant sought to cross-examine the victim (his wife) with<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">information in a police officer’s handwritten “application for 72-hour detention for<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evaluation and treatment.” That document indicated that the victim had accused<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">defendant of assaulting her and pushing her into a window, but that the responding<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">officers had seen a broken window but no evidence of any marks or injuries. The<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">application contained the officer’s conclusion that “there was no fight.” Following the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">incident, no arrest was made and the victim was taken to a hospital for a mental-health<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evaluation and treatment. Defendant claimed that he should be entitled to impeach the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">victim with the prior accusation under
<i>State v. LeClair</i>, 83 Or App 121 (1986), which<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">held that Art. I, § 11, allows a defendant to cross-examine a victim about other<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">accusations in three circumstances: (1) when the victim has recanted the accusations;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">(2) when the defendant demonstrates to the court that those accusations were false; or<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">(3) there is some evidence that the victim has made prior accusations that were false,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">unless the probative value of the impeachment is substantially outweighed by the risk of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">prejudice, confusion, embarrassment or delay. Defendant did not argue that the victim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">had recanted, but he argued that the officer’s application was evidence that the prior<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">accusations were false. The trial court (Judge James Fun) concluded that, although the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">application constituted
<i>some </i>evidence that the accusation was false, the court was not<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">convinced that the accusation was false. The court then excluded the evidence after<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">weighing the probative value against the possible prejudice from the impeachment and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">concluded that the evidence would “not be helpful to the jury” because it would “ask the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">jury to decide the truth or falsity of the occurrence of the prior events” based on no<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence other than the application. Defendant was convicted at trial, and appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></u></i></b><b><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:</span></u></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">
Affirmed (Hadlock, J.). [1] Although the evidence does not fit the first or<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">second
<i>LeClair </i>category—<i>viz.</i>, that the victim recanted or that the defendant has proved<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the falsity of the accusation—it does fit the third: the application by the officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">constituted
<i>some evidence </i>that the victim had made a prior false accusation against<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">defendant. [2] In order to admit such evidence, the court must balance the probative<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">value against the risk of prejudice. The court did so here, and its evaluation was not an<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">abuse of discretion: it was entitled to exclude the evidence based on its conclusion that it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">would create an “unhelpful trial within a trial.” Moreover, because the prior incident<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">occurred out of state and the officer witnesses were not present at trial, and because<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">defendant was the only other witness to the events and could not be compelled to testify,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the court reasonably could conclude that the risk of prejudice would outweigh the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">probative value of the impeachment evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154655.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154655.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">TAMPERING: Evidence did not support a reasonable inference that defendant<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">intended to induce a witness to withhold testimony at an official proceeding.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Williams</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 275 Or
App 752, __ P3d __ (2015) (Clatsop) (AAIC Jamie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Contreras). Defendant was the director of the Commercial Fisherman’s Festival (CFF) in<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Astoria. During a dispute over pay, defendant resigned his position, withdrew money<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">from CFF’s bank accounts, and took property that belonged to CFF and its sponsors. He<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">then talked about what he’d done on Facebook. Defendant and a member of the CFF<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">board, Elizabeth McMaster, started sniping at each other on Facebook. CFF eventually<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">complained to police about the thefts, and police obtained a warrant, with Elizabeth<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">McMaster’s help in identifying items that defendant had stolen. They executed the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">warrant for defendant’s home and vehicles, taking numerous pieces of CFF property.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Two weeks later, defendant approached Elizabeth’s husband Kenneth, who was also a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">member of the CFF board. Defendant told Kenneth that the “sh*t talking” had to stop,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">and “[i]f you don’t stop the sh*t talking, if it doesn’t stop, I will burn down your f*cking<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">house.” Defendant was charged with witness tampering, ORS 162.285, based on that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">statement, as well as theft. He moved for a judgment of acquittal on the tampering<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">charges, arguing that the state failed to prove that he intended to induce the McMasters<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">not to testify at an official proceeding. The trial court (Judge Philip Nelson) denied the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">motion. The jury acquitted defendant of tampering with respect to Elizabeth, but found<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">him guilty of tampering with respect to Kenneth, as well as the thefts.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></i></b><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:</span></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">
Witness tampering count reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">affirmed (Sercombe, P.J.). The trial court should have granted defendant’s motion for<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">judgment of acquittal. [1] As pertinent here, a person tampers with a witness if he<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">knowingly attempts to induce a person from unlawfully withholding testimony in an<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">official proceeding. ORS 162.285(1)(a).
<b>The evidence must support an inference that the<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">defendant “specifically and reasonably believes that the victim will be called to testify at<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">an official proceeding.”
<i>State v. Bailey</i>, 346 Or 551, 565 (2009).</span></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"> [2] Here, the evidence<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">did not permit a rational trier of fact to infer that defendant intended to induce Kenneth to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">withhold testimony in an official proceeding. Nothing in the evidence permitted an<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">inference that defendant believed that Kenneth had special knowledge about the thefts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">that could lead him to be called as a witness, or that his threat was an attempt to induce<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Kenneth not to testify in an official proceeding.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154262.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154262.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Erin S. Greenawald</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Sr. Assistant Attorney General | DA/LE Assistance| Criminal Justice Division<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Oregon Department of Justice<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">2250 McGilchrist Street SE, Suite 100, Salem OR 97302<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Main: 503.378.6347 | Desk: 503.934.2024 | Fax: 503.373.1937</span><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></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>