State v. Richards, 328 P.3d 710

Defendant convicted after a bench trial of attempted murder, second-degree assault, two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, and two counts of menacing arising from two separate but same-day altercations (one with Smith, one with Branch).
Defendant’s sole defense was self-defense; he sought to admit a hearsay statement through his mother, Galvez, relaying a frantic phone call from Rouse: “They’re jumping [defendant], they’re jumping [defendant].”
Trial court excluded Galvez’s testimony quoting Rouse as hearsay, rejecting defense’s claim that it was an excited utterance under OEC 803(2). The State conceded exclusion was erroneous on appeal.
The State argued the exclusion was harmless; defendant contended the statement would have bolstered his self-defense claim and rehabilitated Rouse’s credibility.
The court analyzed harmless error by assessing the likely influence of the excluded testimony on the verdict, separately for the Smith-related counts and the Branch-related counts.

Issue	State's Argument	Galvez/Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Galvez’s statement was admissible as an excited utterance	Court erred in excluding it (State concedes)	Statement falls within OEC 803(2) as an excited utterance	Exclusion was error (conceded and accepted)
Whether exclusion was harmless as to counts arising from Smith altercation (Counts 4 & 6)	Harmless — excluded remark wouldn’t show Smith had a knife or change findings	Would not have aided self-defense on Smith issue	Harmless; convictions for Counts 4 and 6 affirmed
Whether exclusion was harmless as to counts arising from Branch altercation (Counts 1,2,3,5)	Harmless — Rouse’s credibility too damaged to be rehabilitated	Not harmless — statement would support that multiple people were attacking defendant, central to self-defense	Not harmless; convictions for Counts 1,2,3,5 reversed and remanded for new trial
Standard for harmless-error review	Error is harmless only when there is little likelihood it affected the verdict	Error could have influenced the trier of fact on central issues like whether defendant was being jumped	Apply Davis harmless-error approach; here error not harmless for Branch-related counts

State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (harmless-error test: little likelihood the error affected the verdict)
State v. Johnson, 225 Or. App. 545 (assess excluded evidence in light of record evidence on the issue)
State v. Marrington, 335 Or. 555 (greater likelihood an evidentiary error affected verdict when it concerns a central factual issue)
State v. Hren, 237 Or. App. 605 (erroneous exclusion not harmless even against other strong evidence)
State v. Barnes, 208 Or. App. 640 (exclusion of testimony offered to impeach or rehabilitate credibility may not be harmless)
State v. Beisser, 258 Or. App. 326 (erroneous exclusion can deprive trier of fact of all available evidence)

Outcome: Affirmed as to Counts 4 and 6; reversed and remanded for new trial on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5; remanded for resentencing as appropriate.