State v. Supanchick
323 P.3d 231
Or.2014Background
- Defendant Tyke Supanchick was convicted of aggravated murder for killing his estranged wife after she obtained a restraining order and he unlawfully entered her home with a shotgun, duct tape, and a knife.
- Defendant tied and taped the victim to prevent her from calling 9-1-1, intended to persuade her to recant abuse allegations, and later shot her when police forced entry.
- The state sought to admit the victim’s out-of-court statements (restraining-order petition and preparatory notes) under Oregon Evidence Code OEC 804(3)(g) (forfeiture by wrongdoing).
- The trial court held an OEC 104 hearing, found by a preponderance that one purpose of the killing was to make the victim unavailable as a witness, and admitted certain statements after OEC 401/403 review; the jury convicted Supanchick.
- On appeal and review, defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence supporting the intent element of OEC 804(3)(g), (2) whether OEC 804(3)(g) or constitutions require a separate reliability inquiry for forfeiture statements, and (3) whether admission violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports OEC 804(3)(g) intent element | State: record shows defendant took steps to prevent victim calling police and feared she would report violations, supporting intent to make her unavailable | Supanchick: prosecution failed to show intent to make victim unavailable for testimony in an ongoing matter, premeditated plan, or primary purpose | Court: substantial evidence supports trial court’s finding that making victim unavailable was one purpose of the killing; single or primary purpose not required |
| Whether OEC 804(3)(g) requires separate judicial reliability inquiry | State: statute codifies forfeiture; reliability is not an independent statutory requirement | Supanchick: hearsay admitted under forfeiture must have independent guarantees of reliability (common-law import) | Court: text, context, and legislative history show no separate reliability requirement in OEC 804(3)(g); other evidence rules (OEC 401/403) address probative value and prejudice |
| Whether Article I, §11 (Oregon) confrontation right requires reliability when forfeiture applies | State: forfeiture is equitable bar — a defendant who procures unavailability loses confrontation claim | Supanchick: state constitution requires that admission still meet reliability safeguards and waiver must be knowing/intelligent | Court: forfeiture historically barred confrontation and Article I, §11 does not demand a separate reliability inquiry; proof of forfeiture is sufficient to extinguish the right |
| Whether Sixth Amendment or Due Process require reliability inquiry | State: US Supreme Court (Crawford/Giles) accepts forfeiture as exception; no separate reliability inquiry required | Supanchick: Sixth Amendment and Due Process require minimum reliability; lack of cross-examination and statements made in anticipation of litigation make them unreliable | Court: Crawford/Giles foreclose separate reliability requirement under the Sixth Amendment; Due Process not violated because admitted statements were not so unreliable as to offend fundamental fairness and defendant can argue weight to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (established testimonial hearsay rule and recognized forfeiture by wrongdoing as an equitable exception)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (held forfeiture requires intent to prevent witness testimony; discussed historical scope of forfeiture)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (forfeiture bars confrontation objections where defendant procured witness absence; constitutional right does not protect against consequences of wrongful acts)
- State v. Campbell, 299 Or. 633 (Oregon adoption of reliability indicia test under Article I, §11)
- State v. Lawson/James, 352 Or. 724 (discussing OEC 401/403 as articulating minimum reliability standards)