State v. Childs, 243 Or. App. 129

Defendant Jeremy Eugene Childs was convicted by a trial court on two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, one count of first-degree sexual abuse, and one count of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct.
The trial included admission of a physician's diagnosis of child sexual abuse without physical signs, which the defense did not challenge at trial.
The victim was 11 years old at the time of trial and testified about alleged sexual abuse by the defendant.
Photographic evidence admitted at trial showed the victim's genital area and was described as corroborating the victim's account and damaging to the defense.
The trial court expressly indicated the physician's diagnosis had limited value and did not rely on it heavily in its verdict.
The Court of Appeals addressed whether admitting the diagnosis, despite lack of physical signs, was plain error and whether it affected the verdict; it affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the medical diagnosis of abuse admitted in error (plain error)?	Childs contends the diagnosis was improperly admitted without physical evidence.	Childs argues the admission violated Southard and was plain error.	Yes; error was plain, but not corrected on appeal.
Did the diagnosis affect the verdict given corroborating evidence?	There was corroborating evidence beyond the diagnosis.	The diagnosis could have influenced the court's decision.	No; the diagnosis did not likely affect the verdict.
Should the court exercise discretion to correct the error on appeal?	Appellate correction is appropriate where plain error is shown.	Discretion should be exercised to reverse due to the error.	Not exercised; the court declined to affirmatively remedy the error.

State v. Southard, 347 Or. 127 (Or. 2009) (medical diagnosis without physical evidence in child abuse case; plain error standard applied)
State v. Merrimon, 234 Or. App. 515 (Or. App. 2010) (plain error for medical diagnosis admitted post-Southard)
State v. Jury, 185 Or. App. 132 (Or. App. 2002) (plain error evaluation timing; law at time of appeal)
State v. Potts, 242 Or. App. 352 (Or. App. 2011) (not a mere swearing contest; corroboration matters)
State v. Davilia, 239 Or. App. 468 (Or. App. 2010) (corroboration and clinical testimony considerations)
State v. Marrington, 335 Or. 555 (Or. 2003) (context for evaluating corroborative evidence)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (Or. 1991) (standard for evaluating error corrections on appeal)