State v. Arreola
250 Or. App. 496
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant convicted of unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree based on the child victim B's statements and expert diagnoses.
- Two medical experts diagnosed sexual abuse from B’s credibility-based statements, with physical findings largely non-definitive.
- Southard (decided during trial) held such diagnoses are inadmissible absent corroborating physical evidence; trial court denied mistrial and gave a limiting instruction.
- Defense moved for mistrial; court denied and instructed jury to disregard only the diagnosis portions, not other testimony.
- Jury convicted on all counts; defendant appealed arguing the diagnoses were so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial and that the curative instruction was inadequate.
- Court reverses and remands, holding the prejudicial effect was substantial and not cured by instruction; also notes non-unanimous verdict issue was previously rejected by the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical diagnoses of sexual abuse were prejudicial | Vidal/State argues diagnosis evidence cured by instruction. | Schuman argues prejudice denied fair trial. | Prejudicial; denial of mistrial reversed. |
| Whether the court’s limiting instruction cured the prejudice | Instruction sufficient to cure prejudice. | Instruction insufficient given timing and strength of testimony. | Instruction insufficient; mistrial required. |
| Whether the non-unanimous verdict issue is constitutional | Non-unanimous verdict permitted. | Non-unanimous verdict unconstitutional. | Non-unanimous verdict is constitutional in Oregon under current precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Southard, 347 Or 127 (2009) (admission of medical diagnosis of abuse without corroboration is prejudicial)
- Brown v. State, 310 Or 347 (1990) (limiting instruction can cure prejudice in certain cases)
- State v. Vidal, 245 Or App 511 (2011) (plain-error review for admission of abuse diagnosis when physical evidence exists)
- State v. Arriaza, 236 Or App 456 (2010) (prejudice from expert diagnosis reviewed on appeal)
- State v. Volynets-Vasylchenko, 246 Or App 632 (2011) (plain-error review of medical diagnoses of sexual abuse)
- State v. Merrimon, 234 Or App 515 (2010) (prejudice standards for expert testimony in abuse cases)
- State v. Lovern, 234 Or App 502 (2010) (prejudice analysis of expert testimony in sexual abuse case)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (limitations on hearsay/curative instructions for codefendant confessions)