State v. Brown, 302 P.3d 1214

defendant convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse and four counts of third-degree sexual abuse involving two victims.
CARES diagnosed M as sexually abused and diagnosed E as highly concerning for sexual abuse; diagnosis admitted at trial.
trial court admitted the CARES diagnoses despite Southard; defense challenging admissibility.
M testified about the incident with massage; DNA from M’s labia matched defendant (1 in 7,000 likelihood) but no physical evidence was otherwise required for the diagnosis.
E had a massage incident; CARES diagnosed as highly concerning for sexual abuse; E declined physical exam.
on appeal, the court held the CARES diagnoses were inadmissible under Southard and remanded; the 608(2) collateral-existence exhibits were not addressed due to remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of CARES diagnoses	State argues admissibility is improper under Southard	Wollheim contends diagnoses improperly invade credibility assessment	Error admitted; diagnoses excluded on remand
Harmless error analysis for diagnosis	State argues DNA and testimony mitigate impact of diagnosis	Wollheim argues error could have influenced verdict	Error not harmless; reversal warranted
Extrinsic evidence on collateral issue (college transcript and Riverplace application)	State contends not collateral to credibility; admissible under theory of expertise	Wollheim argues breach of OEC 608(2) rules	moot; not decided due to remand

State v. Southard, 347 Or 127 (2009) (admission of sexual-abuse diagnosis risks jury reliance without physical evidence)
State v. Merrimon, 234 Or App 515 (2010) (similar concerns with expert sexual-abuse diagnosis)
State v. Davilia, 239 Or App 468 (2010) (no physical evidence; diagnosis errors cannot be deemed harmless)
State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 (1984) (concerns about credibility of expert testimony)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (2003) (harmless-error standard for trial court error)