Harper v. Washburn, 479 P.3d 1101

Harper pleaded guilty to felony murder as part of a global plea after about a year jailed in Douglas County, much of it in administrative segregation/isolation. He later sought post-conviction relief claiming trial counsel was ineffective for allowing an unknowing, involuntary plea.
Harper’s initial pro se post-conviction petition alleged only that counsel failed to investigate witnesses; his appointed counsel later filed an amended petition asserting the plea was involuntary because Harper suffered severe psychiatric symptoms (suicidal depression, panic attacks, memory loss, post‑concussional syndrome, substance effects) and counsel failed to seek a competence exam.
At the post‑conviction trial Harper testified about isolation, suicidal thoughts, and other mental-health effects; he supported the amended petition with a declaration asserting he was unable to comprehend the plea.
On cross‑examination the superintendent impeached Harper by pointing out that his original pro se petition made no mention of isolation, suicidal thoughts, or related mental‑health claims; the trial court overruled relevance objections and allowed the line of questioning.
The post‑conviction court denied relief and expressly relied on Harper’s omission from the pro se petition in making an adverse credibility finding. Harper appealed, arguing the omission was irrelevant; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.

Issue	Harper's Argument	Washburn's Argument	Held
Admissibility of omissions in a prior pro se pleading to impeach later attorney‑filed claims/testimony	Omission in the pro se petition was irrelevant once replaced by counsel’s amended petition; prior pro se pleading should not be used to impeach the amended claim without foundation	The omission is relevant impeachment evidence showing bias/self‑interest and undermining Harper’s credibility about mental‑health claims	Reversed: omission alone was not shown to be relevant impeachment evidence because the superintendent failed to lay foundation tying the omission to Harper’s knowledge or intent; speculative inference insufficient
Harmlessness of the evidentiary error	The improper impeachment affected the credibility finding and the denial of relief	The superintendent did not argue harmlessness successfully on appeal	Error was not harmless—the trial court explicitly relied on the omission in denying relief, so reversal and remand required

State v. Titus, 328 Or 475 (1999) (relevant evidence is either relevant or not)
State v. Davis, 351 Or 35 (2011) (OEC 401 relevance standard described as a low bar)
State v. Brown, 299 Or 143 (1985) (impeachment for bias may include non‑statement evidence such as relationships or interest)
Roop v. Parker Northwest Paving Co., 194 Or App 219 (2004) (prior pleadings may be admissible to refute or impeach later pleadings or testimony)
State v. Valle, 255 Or App 805 (2013) (proponent must show a jury could infer the consequential fact from the evidence)
State v. Hubbard, 297 Or 789 (1984) (proponent bears burden to lay sufficient foundation for admission)
Gutale v. State of Oregon, 364 Or 502 (2019) (distinguishing actual knowledge of a ground for relief from whether it was reasonably available)
State v. Ogden, 39 Or 195 (1901) (omission in prior testimony or statements is not impeachment without showing attention to specific facts previously omitted)