State v. Edblom, 303 P.3d 1001

Defendant challenged trial court’s admission of hearsay statements under OEC 803(18a)(b) for lack of 15-day notice.
Prosecution had first trial in 2009 on C and K abuse counts; tapes were not admitted but counselor and other witnesses offered hearsay.
Second trial in 2010 retried C’s counts; state relied on prior notice and discovery to admit tape statements.
Trial court admitted C’s hearsay despite defendant’s objection; jury acquitted some counts and convicted others, with nonunanimous verdicts.
Court reversed and remanded due to insufficient notice under OEC 803(18a)(b); discovery alone is not notice; state bore burden of timely, particular notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the 15-day notice sufficient to admit hearsay under OEC 803(18a)(b)?	State contends general discovery and discussion sufficed.	Duncan argues notice lacked particularity.	Not sufficient; reversal and remand.
Did any error in admitting C’s hearsay prejudice the verdict?	Hearsay corroborated victim testimony and supported credibility.	Error prejudicial given lack of overwhelming proof.	Prejudice found; reversal warranted.
Whether nonunanimous verdicts justify affirmance despite error?	Prosecution underscores substantial evidence.	Nonunanimous verdicts unsupported.	Issue not reached due to reversal on first assignment.

State v. Chase, 240 Or App 541 (2011) (notice must describe substance and identify witness or means of introduction; discovery alone insufficient)
State v. Leahy, 190 Or App 147 (2003) (notice must identify particulars of statements and intended use)
State v. Iverson, 185 Or App 9 (2002) (discovery cannot substitute for 15-day notice; substance and form required)
State v. McKinzie, 186 Or App 384 (2003) (legislature chose 15-day notice; discovery alone insufficient)
State v. Bradley, 253 Or App 277 (2012) (notice inadequate when not identifying statements or how offered)
State v. Olsen, 220 Or App 85 (2008) (prejudice analysis under erroneous admission of hearsay)