State v. Benton, 375 Or 334

The state accused Benton of conspiring with Jaynes and Campbell to kill Benton’s wife. 1
Before retrial, Benton moved to exclude coworker Smith from testifying that Jaynes left work on the murder day, arguing Smith’s memory was contaminated and he lacked competency and personal knowledge. 2
The trial court granted the motion under OEC 601, ruling Smith could testify generally but not about whether Jaynes left work that day because he could not presently recollect that fact. 3
The court later explained that suggestive police interviews, Smith’s memory problems, and Smith’s prior inability to remember Jaynes’s whereabouts destroyed his memory on that point. 4
The state took interlocutory review of the pretrial suppression order in this murder case. 5
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed, holding that OEC 601 concerns only general witness competence, not the ability to recall a specific fact. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does OEC 601 allow exclusion of testimony about a specific fact due to memory contamination? 7	State: OEC 601 tests only general witness capacity, not memory of one fact.	Benton: OEC 601 requires ability to perceive, recall, and communicate the specific fact.	OEC 601 addresses only general competency; exclusion was error. 8
Do OEC 601 and OEC 602 permit limiting a competent witness to some facts only? 9	State: OEC 602, not OEC 601, governs personal knowledge of particular matters.	Benton: lack of recollection of the specific fact defeats competency under OEC 601.	No; specific-fact memory goes to OEC 602 or other rules, not OEC 601. 10
Did prior Oregon cases support the trial court’s approach? 11	State: Milbradt and Sarich require only general capacity to testify.	Benton: Sarich’s 'worthwhile to testify' language supports excluding Smith on this issue.	No; those cases address general testimonial capacity, not recall of a particular fact. 12

State v. Milbradt, 305 Or 621 (Or. 1988) (competency turns on general capacities to perceive, recall, and communicate 13)
State v. Sarich, 352 Or 601 (Or. 2012) (witness lacked general ability to communicate perceptions usefully at trial 14)
State v. Hightower, 361 Or 412 (Or. 2017) (legal predicates for discretion are reviewed for errors of law 15)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Or. 2009) (statutes are construed using text, context, and helpful legislative history 16)
PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (Or. 1993) (text is the best evidence of legislative intent 17)
Equitable Life Assurance v. McKay, 306 Or 493 (Or. 1988) (Oregon applies a liberal witness-competency standard and leaves credibility to the jury 18)
State v. Hickman, 355 Or 715 (Or. 2014) (personal-knowledge questions are handled as conditional relevance 19)
State v. Blue, 374 Or 439 (Or. 2025) (1981 commentary to the Oregon Evidence Code is useful interpretive guidance 20)
State v. Serrano, 346 Or 311 (Or. 2009) (evidence-code commentary is highly useful background for interpretation 21)