State v. Kennedy, 480 P.3d 986

Deputy Tuff responded to a 9‑1‑1 domestic‑disturbance call, encountered Kennedy sitting in his car, and decided to arrest him for violating a restraining order.
During the arrest Tuff performed a leg‑sweep takedown; Kennedy later had a broken foot and a head injury; Tuff photographed the head injury and the body‑cam video and hospital photos were admitted at trial.
Kennedy was charged with resisting arrest; Tuff was the State’s sole witness and described the leg sweep as striking Kennedy’s shin with his calf.
On cross‑examination Kennedy sought to introduce an x‑ray and hospital evidence showing a broken foot to impeach Tuff (to show motive/bias to fabricate or exaggerate resistance); the State objected for lack of relevance and the court sustained the objection.
After the State rested, the court offered Kennedy the chance to reopen his case to present the broken‑foot evidence only for substantive purposes (to show preexisting injury); Kennedy declined and was convicted.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in excluding the impeachment evidence and that the after‑the‑fact offer to reopen did not cure the prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence that Kennedy had a broken foot (x‑ray/hospital photos) was relevant and admissible to impeach Officer Tuff by showing bias/interest	The State did not seriously dispute relevance at trial but objected on foundation and relevance grounds; on appeal it conceded the relevance issue was not strongly disputed	Kennedy argued the evidence tended to show Tuff had motive to fabricate/exaggerate (to justify force and avoid consequences), so it was permissibly probative of bias	Court held the evidence was relevant to show Tuff’s bias/interest and erred in excluding it
Whether the trial court’s later offer to reopen Kennedy’s case for substantive use of the injury cured the error / was harmless	The State argued the offer to reopen made any error harmless because Kennedy could have introduced the injury evidence then	Kennedy argued exclusion of impeachment on cross‑examination curtailed his ability to show Tuff’s bias to the jury and that an offer to reopen for a different purpose did not remedy that	Court held the offer did not cure the prior restriction on impeachment; exclusion was prejudicial because Tuff was the sole witness and credibility was central

State v. Hubbard, 688 P.2d 1311 (Or. 1984) (trial judge may not exclude evidence that establishes facts from which witness bias may be inferred)
State v. Titus, 982 P.2d 1133 (Or. 1999) (relevance determinations reviewed for legal error)
State v. Crum, 403 P.3d 405 (Or. App. 2017) (evidence bearing on an officer’s institutional interest may be relevant to bias)
State v. Najibi, 945 P.2d 1093 (Or. App. 1997) (error to exclude evidence from which bias or interest could be inferred)
State v. Smith, 476 P.3d 521 (Or. App. 2020) (defendant bears burden to show evidentiary error likely affected the verdict)