State v. Colon, 284 P.3d 589

Defendant was convicted of one count of fourth-degree assault after a bench trial.
The incident involved defendant and her 17-year-old daughter, the complainant, culminating in a spoon strike.
During defense case, Torres, the complainant's second cousin, was questioned about the complainant's truthfulness.
The trial court sustained objections to Torres's opinion on truthfulness as improper character evidence and lacking foundation.
On appeal, defendant argues the exclusion was error and not preserved; the State argues preservation and lack of merit, but the court reverses and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Torres's opinion on truthfulness properly excluded?	State contends exclusion was proper as improper character evidence.	Defendant argues exclusion was error and the testimony was admissible under OEC 608(1).	Abuse of discretion; exclusion reversible error.
Did defendant establish a sufficient foundation for Torres's testimony on truthfulness?	State asserts inadequate foundation for admissibility.	Defendant contends sufficient familiarity existed to foundation the opinion.	Foundation adequate; court erred in excluding the testimony.

State v. Maxwell, 172 Or App 142 (Or. App. 2001) (OEC 608(1) credibility testimony; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Odoms, 313 Or 76 (Or. 1992) (character for truthfulness admissible by opinion or reputation)
State v. Wirfs, 250 Or App 269 (Or. App. 2012) (preservation and context for excluded evidence)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (Or. 2003) (likelihood of impact on verdict in evidentiary error review)
State v. Smith, 319 Or 37 (Or. 1994) (offer of proof requirements for excluded evidence)
Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209 (Or. 2008) (preservation principles; prudential in nature)