State v. Henley, 386 P.3d 126

Defendant (stepfather) convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and attempted first-degree sodomy for sexual acts against his 11-year-old stepdaughter during a camping trip; earlier incidents included requests to touch and chest/upper-body massages.
Forensic interviewer Courtney Palfreyman (MSW, forensic interviewing training, 600+ child interviews) testified at trial about the concept of "grooming," describing massages as a behavior that could constitute grooming depending on motive.
Defense objected at trial to Palfreyman’s qualifications and to lack of scientific foundation for the grooming testimony; court allowed limited expert testimony under OEC 702 (definition and behaviors, not diagnosing abuse).
Defendant argued on appeal that (1) Palfreyman was not qualified as an expert on grooming, (2) the state failed to lay a Brown/O’Key scientific foundation, and (3) the evidence was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial under OEC 401/403.
The Court of Appeals reviewed preservation and legal-error issues, upheld the trial court’s ruling that Palfreyman was qualified under OEC 702, and held grooming testimony was non-scientific (based on training/experience), so Brown/O’Key foundation was not required; OEC 401/403 objections were unpreserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualification of witness to testify about grooming (OEC 702)	Palfreyman has training and extensive forensic interview experience; can explain grooming behaviors to jury	Palfreyman is not a qualified expert on grooming	Court: Qualified under OEC 702; testimony helpful and outside common knowledge
Requirement of Brown/O’Key scientific foundation	Grooming testimony here is experiential, not scientific, so no Brown/O’Key needed	Grooming testimony is scientific and requires Brown/O’Key foundation	Court: Testimony not scientific (derived from training/experience), Brown/O’Key not required
Relevance of grooming testimony (OEC 401)	Testimony makes defendant’s behavior leading to abuse more probable	Testimony was irrelevant to material facts	Court: Claim unpreserved; no ruling on merits
Prejudice balancing (OEC 403)	Testimony probative and limited in scope; not used to diagnose abuse	Testimony unduly prejudicial and akin to syndrome evidence	Court: Objection not preserved for OEC 403; no review

State v. Brown, 297 Or. 404 (foundation factors for scientific evidence)
State v. O’Key, 321 Or. 285 (Daubert-style analysis; scientific evidence perceived by jurors requires validation)
State v. Marrington, 335 Or. 555 (expert behavioral testimony perceived as scientific requires foundation)
State v. Wilson, 266 Or. App. 286 (distinguishing experience-based testimony from scientific evidence)
State v. Dunning, 245 Or. App. 582 (standard of review for expert admissibility)
State v. Ohotto, 261 Or. App. 70 (preservation principles)
Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or. 285 (review standard for foundation claims)
State v. Stafford, 157 Or. App. 445 (plurality treating grooming testimony as nonscientific)
State v. Montez, 324 Or. 343 (failure to object on specific grounds forfeits appellate review of OEC 401/403)
State v. Isom, 313 Or. 391 (objection on one basis insufficient to preserve other grounds)
State v. Southard, 347 Or. 127 (discussing limits on syndrome/propensity evidence)
State v. Perry, 347 Or. 110 (post-Stafford guidance on perception-based analysis of scientific evidence)