State v. Ferraro, 331 P.3d 1086

Defendant lived with his girlfriend York and her daughter P; P alleged sexual abuse when she was 14–15 and defendant confessed during a police interview.
Defendant was indicted on multiple counts (17 second-degree sexual abuse; 4 third-degree sodomy) and initially attempted to retain private counsel but lost funds allegedly due to fraud.
Public Defender Services (PDS) was appointed but later discovered a conflict from prior representation of York; defense representation changed multiple times and final appointed counsel (Deal) began meaningful preparation ~34 days before trial.
Deal filed multiple motions to continue the June 14 trial date, citing insufficient time to investigate witness credibility (especially York and P), obtain bank records/text messages, and possibly hire experts; the trial court denied continuances despite the state later agreeing a short delay was reasonable.
At trial the court excluded evidence about York’s alleged prior misconduct as irrelevant under OEC 401; defendant was convicted and sentenced to 122 months. On appeal the court found the denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion and reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance	Trial date should stand for timeliness and victim protection; defendant had opportunity to retain counsel earlier	Denial deprived him of reasonable time to investigate, prepare defense, and obtain witnesses/evidence; delays were not his fault	Reversed: court abused discretion; defense counsel lacked reasonable time to prepare and denial prejudiced defendant
Exclusion of evidence under OEC 401 (York’s alleged prior misconduct)	Evidence not relevant or probative enough to overcome confession and protect victim/vulnerable witness	Evidence was central to impeachment and motive to fabricate (financial gain)	Not reached on merits because case reversed for continuance; trial court previously excluded it as irrelevant
Constitutionality of nonunanimous jury verdicts	N/A (State defended existing practice)	Defendant argued unconstitutionality	Argument rejected by appellate court as previously decided against defendant (cited precedent)
Failure to preserve recording / judicial bias (pro se supplemental)	State: recording contained no exculpatory material; no bad faith	Defendant: recording withheld and judge biased	Court affirmed trial court findings — no bad faith in recording retention; bias claim rejected

State v. Curnutte, 250 Or App 379 (court rejected challenge to nonunanimous verdicts)
State v. Wolfer, 241 Or 15 (continuance decisions are within trial court discretion)
State v. Bumgarner, 219 Or App 617 (appellate review of continuance denial; prejudice requirement)
State v. Martinez, 224 Or App 588 (abuse-of-discretion standard for continuances)
State v. Zaha, 44 Or App 103 (right to obtain counsel of choice balanced against speedy trial; delays attributable to defendant matter)
State v. Schmick, 62 Or App 227 (balancing right to counsel of choice with state’s interest in timely resolution)
State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Garcia, 180 Or App 279 (counsel must be given reasonable time to prepare)
State v. Smith, 339 Or 515 (constitutional right to effective, prepared counsel)
State v. Keerins, 145 Or App 491 (timing for substitute counsel; preparation concerns)
State v. Reese, 25 Or App 231 (continuance to procure witnesses requires some showing of materiality/ability to produce)
State v. Hickey, 79 Or App 200 (denial of continuance where counsel lost file was an abuse; prejudice may be presumed)
State v. Mai, 294 Or 269 (defendant’s right to present a defense under Article I, section 11)