State v. Del Real-Galvez, 346 P.3d 1289

Victim (X) alleged sexual abuse by her uncle (defendant) when she was younger; defendant charged with multiple counts including two first-degree sexual abuse counts and one coercion count tried here.
After X’s allegation, X’s mother applied for a U visa based on X’s alleged abuse; Catholic Charities and the prosecutor provided supporting documentation and a certification noting the mother’s cooperation.
Defense sought to impeach X by showing (1) X knew her mother was undocumented, (2) X knew a U visa could be obtained based on abuse allegations, and (3) X might therefore have a motive to testify to help her mother.
Trial court excluded testimony and evidence about the U visa application, statements by X’s mother, and the mother’s immigration status as irrelevant; defendant was convicted on Counts 1, 3, and 5.
On appeal defendant argued exclusion of that impeachment evidence was legal error and not harmless; the state argued relevance had not been sufficiently shown (specifically that X knew her mother would pursue a U visa if abuse were reported).
The Court of Appeals reviewed Valle and Prange, held the impeachment evidence was relevant under a low relevance threshold for bias, and reversed and remanded on Counts 1, 3, and 5 because the error was not harmless; other issues were left for potential development on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of evidence that X’s mother applied for a U visa based on X’s allegations	Exclusion proper because defendant did not show X knew mother would seek a U visa upon disclosure	Evidence was relevant to show X’s motive/bias to help her mother obtain immigration relief	Evidence was relevant; exclusion was error and not harmless; reversal and remand on affected counts
Admissibility of testimony that X knew her mother was undocumented and that alleging abuse could help obtain a U visa	Not relevant absent proof X expected a visa application would follow her disclosure	Relevant to show X had a personal interest in testifying consistent with a visa-based application	Relevant; exclusion improper under low threshold for bias impeachment
Whether bias can be inferred from a family member’s pursuit of immigration benefits	State: Valle limited to victims who personally applied for U visas	Defense: bias may be inferred from family relationships and indirect benefits	Court: Valle applies; bias/inference need not be direct—family member’s application can imply witness interest
Harmless-error analysis for excluded impeachment evidence	State did not argue harmlessness; evidence not critical enough to require reversal	Exclusion deprived jury of information central to X’s credibility, undermining prosecution’s case	Error was not harmless; reversal and remand for new trial on Counts 1, 3, and 5

State v. Valle, 255 Or. App. 805 (discusses low threshold for relevance of impeachment evidence showing witness’s personal interest in testifying)
State v. Prange, 247 Or. App. 254 (bias may be shown by relationships; impeachment by association is permissible)