State v. Hazlett, 345 P.3d 482

Background

Defendant assaulted and sexually abused his intimate partner (W); charged with multiple offenses including first‑degree unlawful sexual penetration, first‑degree sexual abuse, strangulation, fourth‑degree assault (domestic violence), and harassment.
At arrest officers observed defendant highly intoxicated and lethargic; defendant testified he had taken liquid morphine, Oxycodone, Xanax, and alcohol and had memory gaps.
Defense called Dr. Robert Julien, a retired anesthesiologist and psychopharmacology researcher, to testify about drug effects and "drug‑induced dementia" (blackouts) and whether such a state impairs ability to form intent.
Trial court allowed Julien to describe drug effects and blackouts but precluded him from testifying that drug‑induced dementia prevents formation of legal intent or from discussing his article that raised legal‑liability questions.
Jury convicted defendant on Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10; some charges were dismissed or resulted in acquittal.
On appeal the court held the trial court erred in excluding Julien’s opinion that drug‑induced dementia affects ability to form intent and that error was not harmless as to counts requiring knowledge or intent; convictions on Counts 2, 3, 7, and 10 reversed and remanded; Count 6 (recklessness) affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Julien qualified under OEC 702 to opine that drug‑induced dementia prevents formation of legal intent	Julien may describe drug effects but is not qualified to opine on legal mental states; he is not a psychologist/psychiatrist and didn’t evaluate defendant	Julien’s pharmacology, psychopharmacology research, anesthesiology experience, and publication qualified him to opine on how blackout/dementia affects ability to form intent	Court: Trial court erred — Julien was qualified to testify on effect of drug‑induced dementia on ability to form intent under OEC 702
Whether defendant preserved the challenge to exclusion of Julien’s intent opinion	Exclusion was not preserved because no adequate offer of proof that Julien would opine on intent	Defense elicited Julien’s opinions at the OEC 104 hearing and argued the substance to the court	Held preserved: OEC 104 colloquy and Julien’s testimony made substance clear and satisfied offer‑of‑proof purposes
Whether exclusion of Julien’s intent opinion was harmless error	State: Even without that testimony, evidence and argument allowed jury to assess intent from conduct; error harmless	Defense: Julien’s excluded opinion was central to defense theory that blackout negated intent; exclusion prejudiced counts requiring intent/knowledge	Not harmless as to counts requiring knowing/intentional mens rea (Counts 2, 3, 7, 10); harmless as to reckless offense (Count 6) because voluntary intoxication/unawareness is immaterial for recklessness
Other claims: absence from trial due to hospitalization and denial of continuance	State: preserved or not at issue	Defendant: trial court erred in finding waiver and denying continuance	Court rejected these assignments without discussion (citing precedent)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282 (discussing standard for expert qualification under OEC 702) (framework for evaluating witness qualifications)
State v. Dunning, 245 Or App 582 (appellate review of trial court’s expert‑qualification determinations) (standard of review)
State v. Morgan, 251 Or App 99 (offers of proof and preservation of evidentiary error) (what satisfies preservation)
Schacher v. Dunne, 109 Or App 607 (offers of proof permit court to make informed ruling) (purpose of offer of proof)
Barrett v. Coast Range Plywood, 294 Or 641 (nonpsychologist experts may testify about psychological components when qualified) (expert scope not limited by formal degree)
Sandow v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 252 Or 377 (permitting testimony on mental/emotional condition by qualified non‑medical witnesses) (expert testimony scope)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary errors) (affirm despite error if unlikely to affect verdict)
State v. Hren, 237 Or App 605 (role of excluded evidence in harmless‑error analysis) (consideration of defense theory)
State v. Harris, 291 Or 179 (court may summarily reject certain claims) (cited in disposing of other assignments)