Hagberg v. Coursey, 344 P.3d 1118

Petitioner was convicted in 2005 of multiple sexual offenses against an 8‑year‑old victim; conviction affirmed on direct appeal after subsequent Supreme Court proceedings.
About one month before trial the prosecutor sent defense counsel an OEC 803(18a)(b) notice stating the state intended to introduce the victim’s statements but did not identify particulars.
At trial the state played a child‑forensic interview DVD and elicited testimony from the victim’s sister recounting the victim’s out‑of‑court statements; defense counsel did not object to hearsay or insufficiency of the notice.
Petitioner filed a post‑conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object that the OEC 803(18a)(b) notice lacked required particulars, and that exclusion of the evidence would have been required and prejudicial.
Trial counsel testified he knew what evidence would be offered, had unsuccessfully sought particularity in other local cases, and believed an objection would fail or be counterproductive.
The post‑conviction court found counsel’s choice reasonable given local practice and the state of the law in 2005; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding petitioner failed to show that competent counsel necessarily would have objected under the law existing then.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was deficient for not objecting that the OEC 803(18a)(b) notice lacked "particulars"	Hagberg: the notice was vague; counsel should have objected and exclusion was required, which would have been prejudicial	State/Hagberg: counsel reasonably relied on local practice and prior unsuccessful motions; counsel knew the substance and a motion likely would have failed or harmed client	Counsel not deficient: given 2005 law and local practice, a reasonable attorney could decline to object; post‑conviction court’s factual findings upheld

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under federal constitution)
State v. Chase, 240 Or. App. 541 (2011) (OEC 803(18a)(b) requires notice identifying substance of statement and means/witness of introduction)
State v. Iverson, 185 Or. App. 9 (2002) (failure to give required 15‑day notice bars admission; exclusion is the sanction)
State v. McKinzie, 186 Or. App. 384 (2003) (providing discovery alone does not satisfy the rule’s separate notice requirement)
State v. Leahy, 190 Or. App. 147 (2003) (notice must identify particulars of statements sought to be introduced)