341 P.3d 758
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant was charged with murder (domestic violence) after his wife disappeared in 2010; he admitted killing her but claimed accidental death in self-defense.
- After police found potential blood stains and other indicia, officers discovered a note by defendant confessing and indicating where the body could be found; clothing was recovered from the river but no body.
- Several witnesses testified about the victim’s pre-death statements describing prior strangulation by defendant, fear of him, his drinking, and her desire for counseling.
- At trial the state relied on those out-of-court victim statements to rebut defendant’s self-defense/accident theory and to show intent; defendant objected as hearsay and as improper prior-bad-acts evidence.
- The trial court admitted various statements under OEC hearsay exceptions (state-of-mind, excited utterance); defendant was convicted by a jury.
- On appeal the court affirmed the conviction on evidentiary rulings but reversed and remanded to remove no-contact provisions in the judgment (court lacked authority to impose them during incarceration).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Knight’s statement ("I hope he is not drunk...") | Admissible under OEC 803(3) to show victim’s then-existing fear/state of mind relevant to intent and self-defense | Inadmissible hearsay; jury would need to accept truth of the statement to infer state of mind | Admitted: falls within state-of-mind exception; no error |
| Admission of Rebecca Brown’s March and May 2010 statements (describing prior strangulation and fear) | Admissible under OEC 404(3) to rebut accident/self-defense and under OEC 803(3) and 803(2) (excited utterance/state of mind) | Hearsay and prior-bad-acts/proclivity evidence; not admissible to prove defendant’s character | Admitted: May statement admissible under 803(3); March statement inadmissible under 803(3) but properly admitted under 803(2) (excited utterance); 404(3) relevance upheld per Johns factors |
| Admission of Jeffrey Brown’s October 2010 statement (victim said defendant tried to strangle her) | Admissible under OEC 803(3) as state-of-mind; alternatively excited utterance | Hearsay, prior-bad-acts, unreliable; admission prejudicial | Any error harmless: testimony was cumulative of other properly admitted testimony and evidence; conviction stands |
| No-contact provision in judgment | State concedes trial court lacked authority to impose no-contact during incarceration; judgment should be corrected | Defendant requested removal | Reversed as to that provision and remanded for corrected judgment omitting no-contact condition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clegg, 332 Or 432 (discussing view of evidence in light most favorable to state and application of state-of-mind hearsay exception)
- State v. Cook, 340 Or 530 (standard of review for hearsay-exception factual findings and legal conclusions)
- State v. Johns, 301 Or 535 (factors for admission of prior-bad-act evidence to show intent/state of mind)
- State v. Moen, 309 Or 45 (prior hostile acts probative of intent/mens rea)
- State v. Brown, 310 Or 347 (state-of-mind hearsay exception; statements of fear)
- State v. Carlson, 311 Or 201 (elements for excited-utterance exception)
- State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (Oregon harmless-error test: "little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict")
- State v. Langmayer, 239 Or App 600 (court lacked authority to impose condition of incarceration; remedy is corrected judgment)