State v. Paniagua
341 P.3d 906
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault (domestic violence) and harassment after an altercation with his ex‑girlfriend, Jones; they testified to conflicting versions of events.
- Defense sought to impeach Jones’s credibility under OEC 608(1) with opinion testimony from three witnesses that Jones was not truthful; two (Rebitzke and Sullivan) were allowed to testify; Shaw was initially called as a third character witness.
- The prosecutor objected to Shaw’s opinion testimony for lack of foundation; Shaw testified she had known Jones four years but only had brief contact (about five or six times) in the past year and that her opinion partly derived from things she had heard from others.
- The trial court excluded Shaw’s opinion testimony on the ground that her contacts with Jones in the relevant period were insufficient to form a basis for an admissible opinion under OEC 608(1); the jury convicted the defendant.
- On appeal, defendant argued the exclusion was an abuse of discretion because Shaw had sufficient, recent personal contacts to form an admissible opinion about Jones’s character for truthfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Shaw’s opinion testimony under OEC 608(1) | State: Shaw’s brief, partly hearsay‑based contacts were insufficient to lay a proper foundation for opinion testimony | Defendant: Shaw’s four‑year acquaintance and recent contacts (5–6 times) gave her a proper basis to opine on Jones’s truthfulness | Court: No abuse of discretion; contacts were too infrequent/insufficiently personal and partly based on others’ reports |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maxwell, 172 Or App 142 (trial court’s discretion in admitting 608(1) opinion testimony and sufficiency of contacts)
- State v. Colon, 251 Or App 714 (opinion testimony admissible where witness had lifelong acquaintance and significant time with complainant)
- State v. Coffee, 116 Or App 23 (recency and frequency of contacts required to have current basis for opinion)
- State v. Miller, 52 Or App 335 (reputation evidence as a method to prove character for truthfulness)