State v. Vidal
245 Or. App. 511
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of multiple counts including first-degree rape, unlawful sexual penetration, sodomy, and sexual abuse involving a neighbor child around eight years old.
- The victim reported the abuse; she was examined at The Children's Center and interview/exam findings were used at trial.
- Pediatric nurse practitioner O'Dell testified about hymenal irregularities and stated the findings could indicate penetrative injury, contributing to a diagnosis of child sexual abuse.
- Defendant did not object to O'Dell's testimony; on appeal he asserted plain error under State v. Southard because the diagnosis was made without corroborating physical evidence.
- The trial court and appellate court addressed whether the medical diagnosis of sexual abuse is admissible under OEC 403 given potential prejudice, distinguishing Southard and Lovern.
- Court affirmed, concluding the error, if any, was not apparent on the face of the record and was reasonably in dispute, thus not preserved as plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of medical diagnosis as expert testimony | State argues diagnosis is admissible under Brown/Southard framework. | Vidal argues diagnosis is plain error under Southard and Lovern. | Not plain error; issue reasonably in dispute. |
| Applicability of Southard/Lovern to this case | Southard supports admission where no physical evidence required. | Lovern and Southard require exclusion or limit due to potential prejudice. | Case distinguishable; not governed by Southard/Lovern rule here. |
| Effect of hymenal findings on credibility and prejudice | Findings corroborate abuse and support diagnosis. | Notices of potential normal variation could confuse jury. | Hymenal irregularities found significant and corroborative; not reversible error under the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Southard, 347 Or. 127 (2009) (admissibility of medical diagnosis of sexual abuse without physical evidence; narrow rule)
- State v. Lovern, 234 Or. App. 502 (2010) (diagnosis of sexual abuse based on notches in hymen; under Southard framework)
- State v. Brown, 297 Or. 404 (1984) (framework for evaluating scientific evidence in abuse cases)
- State v. Gibson, 338 Or. 560 (2005) (summary treatment of evidentiary standard for corroboration)