300 P.3d 261
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2008, victim S, age five, lived with her cousin Denetclaw and Denetclaw’s fiancé, defendant; S referred to Denetclaw as mom and to defendant as daddy Robert.
- KIDS center evaluation followed allegations of prior sexual touching by others; S disclosed multiple acts by defendant.
- Hartley, a physician assistant, conducted the medical exam and elicited disclosures including that defendant put his penis in S’s mouth, touched her nipples, and told her not to tell.
- Defendant confessed to having S grind her vaginal and anal area on his groin; S’s disclosures were offered as corroboration for those counts.
- Trial court denied the motion for judgment of acquittal on sexual abuse counts, finding some corroboration, and the jury convicted on all counts.
- On appeal, defendant challenged the corroboration standard under ORS 136.425(1); court affirmed, holding there was sufficient corroboration to submit counts to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corroboration supports first-degree sexual abuse counts | State argues S disclosures, plus confession, establish corpus delicti | Denetclaw’s disclosures do not corroborate sexual-abuse charges | Yes; corroboration sufficient to deny acquittal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lerch, 296 Or 377 (1984) (corpus delicti doctrine; corroboration need not prove every element)
- State v. Primeaux, 230 Or App 470 (2009) (corroboration threshold is low; need not be substantial evidence)
- State v. Chatelain, 347 Or 278 (2009) (corroboration evidence may come from multiple sources to establish corpus delicti)
- State v. Kelley, 239 Or App 266 (2010) (low corroboration standard for ORS 136.425(1))
- State v. Delp, 218 Or App 17 (2008) (corpus delicti for sexual abuse; sexual contact required)