State v. MacBale
305 P.3d 107
Or.2013Background
- Defendant MacBale charged with multiple sex crimes; sought to introduce evidence that the alleged victim previously made false rape accusations to show motive/bias and other probative uses under OEC 412.
- Under OEC 412 (Oregon’s rape-shield rule), reputation/opinion and most past sexual behavior are presumptively inadmissible except in narrow statutory exceptions; admissibility motions must be accompanied by written offers of proof.
- OEC 412(4) requires an in camera hearing to decide admissibility if the offer of proof shows potentially admissible evidence; OEC 412(5) defines “in camera” as outside the presence of the public and jury.
- Trial court ordered the OEC 412 hearing but denied MacBale’s motion to open that hearing to the public, enforcing the statutory in camera requirement.
- MacBale petitioned this Court for mandamus, arguing the Oregon Constitution (Art I §§10,11) and U.S. Constitution (First and Sixth Amendments) require public access to the OEC 412 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (MacBale) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article I, §10 (open courts) forbids statutory in camera OEC 412 hearings | Section 10 permits some closures; legislature may protect sensitive, presumptively irrelevant evidence | Section 10’s command that “no court shall be secret” requires public access to all proceedings determining admissibility | Court: §10 does not require OEC 412 hearings be public; such hearings do not ‘administer justice’ in the Article I, §10 sense |
| Whether Article I, §11 (public trial right) requires OEC 412 hearing to be public | §11 protects public trial but applies to trial itself, not narrow pretrial admissibility hearings | §11 guarantees a public proceeding to guard against prosecutorial abuse and jury prejudice; extends to pretrial aspects | Court: §11 applies to the trial; does not require OEC 412 pretrial hearing to be public |
| Whether First Amendment gives MacBale standing to insist on public access | Press/public have First Amendment right of access to some judicial proceedings; but right is asserted by excluded public/press | MacBale asserted a public right of access under First Amendment to attend hearing | Court: MacBale lacks standing to assert First Amendment access (he himself may attend); First Amendment claim fails |
| Whether Sixth Amendment requires public OEC 412 hearing | Sixth Amendment sometimes extends to pretrial proceedings integral to trial (voir dire, suppression) | MacBale: OEC 412 hearing is integral to his defense and values underlying public trial (fairness, deterrence of misconduct, discouraging perjury) | Court: Sixth Amendment values not implicated here; OEC 412 hearing not an integral part of trial requiring public access |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop, 352 Or 77 (Or. 2012) (interpreting Article I, §10 and limits on post-trial disclosure of exhibits)
- State ex rel Oregonian Pub. Co. v. Deiz, 289 Or 277 (Or. 1980) (Article I, §10 requires openness of judicial proceedings with limited traditional exceptions)
- Oregonian Pub. Co. v. O’Leary, 303 Or 297 (Or. 1987) (Article I, §10 applies to adjudications and required openness for certain pretrial adjudicative hearings)
- State v. Lajoie, 316 Or 63 (Or. 1993) (rationale for rape-shield protections to prevent degrading disclosure of victims’ sexual history)
- State v. Osborne, 54 Or 289 (Or. 1909) (historical purpose of public trial right to protect accused from prosecutorial abuse)
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial hearings historically less open than trials)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (Sixth Amendment requires public access to certain suppression hearings)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (Sixth Amendment right extends to public voir dire)