State v. Belden, 464 P.3d 465

Defendant convicted of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence after jury trial; victim (C) did not appear at trial.
Bystander Laharty encountered C at defendant’s doorway; C had visible injuries and made out-of-court statements that she had been assaulted, identified where the attacker was hiding, and said she feared losing her housing if police got involved.
The state attempted to contact C at least 13 times over months, spoke with her and others on multiple occasions, served a subpoena, and sent a representative to her home the morning of trial; C twice evaded service and repeatedly said she did not want to participate.
On the morning of trial, C failed to appear; the state sought a pretrial ruling that C was unavailable under Article I, §11 and to admit her statements (offered as excited utterances) through Laharty.
Defendant objected that the state had not exhausted reasonably available means (arguing the state should have involved C’s probation officer again or pursued contempt) and also objected to the court’s suggestion of a short continuance.
The trial court found the statements admissible as excited utterances and that the state had reasonably exhausted efforts to secure C; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding unavailability was established and confrontation rights were not violated.

Issue	State's Argument	Belden's Argument	Held
Whether the state exhausted all reasonably available means to produce C such that she was "unavailable" under Article I, §11	State had made repeated, multi-month attempts (calls, in-person attempts, subpoena, contact with probation officer) and C actively avoided testifying, so unavailability established	State should have done more (recontact probation officer, initiate contempt) before admitting statements	Court: efforts were reasonable in light of C’s evasiveness; unavailability established and statements admissible
Whether defendant invited error by objecting to a short continuance suggested by the court	N/A — state did not request continuance and maintained it had exhausted efforts	Objected to a late start and asserted trial date should not be delayed; argued any set-over would have shown state didn’t exhaust efforts	Court rejected invited-error claim (state never agreed to set-over) and held defendant may challenge admissibility

Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (two-part test: declarant unavailable and indicia of reliability)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements barred unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
State v. Harris, 362 Or 55 (Oregon requires exhaustion of reasonably available means; invited-error discussion)
State v. Starr, 269 Or App 97 (state’s diligent efforts to locate an impermanent, hard-to-find victim can establish unavailability)
State v. Anderson, 42 Or App 29 (extensive multi-month efforts and use of deputies to serve subpoenas were reasonable)
State v. Iseli, 366 Or 151 (distinguished: addressed statutory hearsay unavailability under OEC 804, not the constitutional confrontation clause)