483 P.3d 1223
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Rashad entered a convenience store where the victim (a cashier) worked and where an active restraining order prevented contact.
- The victim testified Rashad approached and insulted him; Rashad testified he did not recognize or interact with the victim.
- The store manager viewed the encounter on silent security video and testified Rashad and the victim stood face-to-face, the victim backed into a corner, and the manager was sufficiently concerned to leave her office.
- Rashad was found in contempt for violating the restraining order and appealed, arguing the trial court improperly excluded cross-examination probing whether the victim believed Rashad was having an affair with the victim’s wife (to show bias).
- The court of appeals held the exclusion was legal error because bias evidence is always relevant, but the error was harmless because the manager’s corroborating testimony was the basis for the court’s credibility finding and verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examining the victim about his belief that Rashad was having an affair with the victim’s wife was relevant impeachment (bias) evidence | Exclusion proper; evidence not sufficiently relevant | Belief tends to show motive to lie and bias; cross-examination should be allowed | Trial court erred; evidence probative of bias is relevant and impeachment by bias is always permissible |
| Whether the evidentiary error was prejudicial (harmless-error) | Any error was harmless because other evidence supported verdict | Exclusion could have affected credibility and outcome | Harmless: manager’s corroborating testimony was the basis of the speaking verdict, so the error likely did not affect the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pitt, 352 Or 566 (2012) (standard of review for relevance under OEC 401)
- State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (2003) (harmless-error standard: whether little likelihood the error affected the verdict)
- State v. Crum, 287 Or App 541 (2017) (evidence that merely tends to show bias is relevant)
- State v. Kennedy, 308 Or App 651 (2021) (bias impeachment always permissible and cross-examination afforded wide discretion)
- State v. Welch, 295 Or App 410 (2018) (definition and elements of willful violation of an order)
- State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675 (2019) (a speaking verdict can reveal the trial court’s credibility basis and support harmless-error findings)
- State v. Ramirez, 310 Or App 62 (2021) (exclusion of impeachment evidence is harmful where credibility is the central issue)