State v. Riley, 308 P.3d 1080

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of sodomy in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree arising from alleged abuses of a nine-year-old victim.
Victim made hearsay statements to multiple people, including his mother, YMCA staff, and police, and a CARES interview was DVD-recorded and shown at trial.
Before trial, the state notified an intention to offer the victim’s statements under OEC 803(18a)(b), with an affidavit detailing the statements and places they occurred.
The trial court found sufficiency for most statements but deemed hospital records and CARES report material insufficiently particularized.
The state sought to admit a letter written by the defendant to his wife; ORS 419B.040(1) was argued to abrogate the husband-wife privilege in child-abuse cases.
Defendant’s wife testified and the letter was admitted; defendant challenged the abrogation and preservation of the privilege issue, and the court ruled the abrogation applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of notice under OEC 803(18a)(b)	State contends notice identified particular statements by page and DVD references; sufficient under Chase.	Notice was too general; failed to specify substance and witness/means for all statements.	Notice sufficient for identified pages and CARES DVD; trial court did not err admitting statements.
Abrogation of husband-wife privilege for child abuse cases	ORS 419B.040(1) broadens exception; abrogates privilege in child abuse proceedings.	Statute does not apply because trial did not arise from a mandated report; privilege should remain.	Court assumed arguendo abrogation applies; however, error, if any, was harmless.
Admission of the letter and wife’s testimony; preservation and harmlessness	Letter and wife’s testimony were permissible under abrogation and necessary to prove statements.	Letter was improperly admitted and privilege applied; wife’s testimony was improper.	Defendant waived/failed to preserve; any error harmless; affirmed.

State v. Chase, 240 Or App 541 (2011) (requires substance and witness/means identified, not verbatim text)
State v. Leahy, 190 Or App 147 (2003) (notes that merely providing discovery is insufficient notice)
State v. Bradley, 253 Or App 277 (2012) (notice must identify particulars rather than generic discovery)
State v. Edblom, 257 Or App 22 (2013) (discovery-based general notices insufficient for taped interviews)
State ex rel SOSCF v. Williams, 168 Or App 538 (2000) (describes mandatory child abuse reporting statutes)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Spencer, 198 Or App 599 (2005) (references child abuse reporting law)
State v. Serrano, 346 Or 311 (2009) (explains scope of marital privilege and related concepts)