State v. Crum, 403 P.3d 405

Defendant was charged with four counts of menacing based on officers' claim that he raised and pointed an air rifle at them during a nighttime confrontation.
Defendant admitted possession of the air rifle but claimed he held it at his side and pointed downward, not at the officers.
Defendant sought to admit use-of-force policies of the Sheriffs Office and the Bandon Police, arguing bias/motive to claim he menaced them in conformity with policies.
The trial court denied the use-of-force-policy evidence as irrelevant, and the jury was instructed based on the state's theory of suicidal/armed-encounter to justify deadly force.
At trial, four officers testified defendant raised the rifle; expert/forensic evidence and other statements were introduced to support the state's theory of intimidation and intent.
The jury convicted defendant on all four counts; defendant appealed, challenging the exclusion of the policy evidence as error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in excluding use-of-force policy evidence	Hubbard bias impeachment supports admissibility	Policies show officers had motive to lie to justify force	Exclusion was error; not harmless
Whether defendant preserved the challenge to the policy evidence exclusion	Defense preserved via pretrial motion and ruling	Preservation lacking due to misunderstanding of ruling	Preserved (affirmative ruling on the motion)
Whether the erroneous exclusion of policy evidence was harmless	Policy evidence was essential to assess officer credibility	Other corroborating evidence sufficed; harmless error	Not harmless; affected verdict

State v. Hubbard, 297 Or 789 (Or. 1984) (bias/impeachment evidence is broadly admissible to test credibility)
State v. Valle, 255 Or App 805 (Or. App. 2013) (bias evidence must be received unless excluded for specific reasons)
State v. Prange, 247 Or App 254 (Or. App. 2011) (bias/interest evidence generally admissible; discretion to exclude is limited)
State v. Sheeler, 15 Or App 96 (Or. App. 1973) (jury's right to hear all facts relating to witness credibility)
State v. Najibi, 150 Or App 194 (Or. App. 1997) (constitutional right to impeach witness with motive to curry favor)
State v. Nacoste, 272 Or App 460 (Or. App. 2015) (impeachment evidence with multiple motives; not all motives render harmless)
State v. Hernandez, 269 Or App 327 (Or. App. 2015) (multiple motives; cumulative impeachment evidence does not render exclusion harmless)
State v. Miller, 272 Or App 737 (Or. App. 2015) (cumulative motives; exclusion not harmless when bias evidence is probative)
State v. Titus, 328 Or 475 (Or. 1999) (harmlessness standard for exclusion of bias evidence)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (Or. 2003) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Marquez-Vela, 266 Or App 738 (Or. App. 2014) (harmlessness assessment and bias-impeachment principles)