356 P.3d 135
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant (25) charged with sexual abuse (second degree), assault (fourth degree, domestic violence), and strangulation based on relationship with 16‑year‑old K; jury convicted on one count of sexual abuse and one count of assault.
- K was a juvenile with prior juvenile adjudications, on probation, had an outstanding warrant, and was in juvenile detention when she initially reported defendant and at trial.
- Defendant sought to cross‑examine K about her juvenile adjudication and custody status (and to introduce prior lies about age) to show bias/motive under OEC 609‑1 and the Confrontation Clause, relying on Davis v. Alaska.
- Trial court prohibited inquiry into K’s juvenile delinquency adjudications and probationary status, allowing only that she had been taken to juvenile detention as a runaway; it also excluded specific‑instance evidence of K lying about her age.
- On appeal, defendant argued the exclusion of juvenile adjudication/custody evidence prevented him from making a threshold showing of bias and violated his confrontation rights.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred in wholly precluding cross‑examination about K’s juvenile delinquency custody status and reversed the sexual‑abuse conviction, remanding for a new trial on that count.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly excluded evidence of K’s juvenile adjudications and custody status as impeachment for bias under OEC 609‑1 and the Confrontation Clause | Exclusion appropriate because juvenile adjudications are confidential and not admissible impeachment under OEC 609(6); runaway status admissible background but delinquency details prejudicial | Under Davis and OEC 609‑1, defendant entitled to cross‑examine K about juvenile delinquency custody status to show motive to curry favor with prosecution and susceptibility to pressure | Reversed: exclusion of juvenile delinquency custody evidence was legal error; defendant entitled to make initial showing of bias via that evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (juvenile probation status may be shown on cross‑examination to expose witness’s bias)
- State v. Hubbard, 297 Or. 789 (1984) (wide latitude to cross‑examine to show bias; exclusion of bias evidence can be reversible)
- State v. Calderon, 237 Or. App. 610 (2010) (legal error when court precludes initial showing of witness bias; OEC 403 reviewed for abuse of discretion after threshold met)
- State v. Valle, 255 Or. App. 805 (2013) (error to exclude evidence from which jury could infer a prosecution witness’s motive to curry favor)
- State v. Najibi, 150 Or. App. 194 (1997) (witness’s pending exposure to prosecution creates inference of motive to please state)
- State v. Shelly, 212 Or. App. 65 (2007) (error to forbid impeachment by showing witness on probation or subject to investigation)
- State v. Hernandez, 269 Or. App. 327 (2015) (excluded evidence not harmless where admitted evidence was qualitatively different)