419 P.3d 794
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Complainant A left a wallet containing $1,815 on a guest chair in Exam Room 3 during a dental visit; staff did not find it after cleaning.
- Defendant was the next patient in Exam Room 3 for about 30 minutes; a hygienist testified she saw him "messing with the chair" and that he "bee-lined" out when she entered.
- Defendant said he was "repositioning" himself after an involuntary incontinence episode and went to the bathroom; he denied fiddling with the chair or taking the wallet.
- About 45 minutes later police found the wallet without cash in a bathroom air-conditioning duct; defendant had little money when arrested and denied taking the wallet.
- At trial the state requested UCrJI 1029 (witness-false-in-part); the court gave the instruction over defense objection that willful falsity had not been shown.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the record lacked sufficient evidence that any witness "consciously testified falsely," so giving UCrJI 1029 was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCrJI 1029 (witness-false-in-part) was properly given | Instruction appropriate when jury must resolve credibility; any material inconsistency supports it | Instruction allowed only when evidence permits a jury to find conscious, willful falsity; here discrepancies were minor | Reversed — insufficient evidence of conscious falsity; instruction should not have been given |
| Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard and exercised discretion properly | Trial court acted within discretion in giving instruction because credibility was at issue | Trial court applied too broad a standard and failed to identify factual predicates showing willful falsehood | Reversed — court erred in applying the instruction without adequate factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman v. State, 288 Or. App. 441 (discusses requirement that jury could find a witness consciously testified falsely for UCrJI 1029)
- Ireland v. Mitchell, 226 Or. 286 (explains that honest mistakes and hazy recollection do not invoke the statutory instruction)
- Milnes v. State, 256 Or. App. 701 (examines factual predicate needed to give UCrJI 1029)
- Harrell/Wilson v. State, 353 Or. 247 (describes proper bounds and review of judicial discretion)
- Rogers v. State, 330 Or. 282 (addresses meaning of trial-court discretion in criminal cases)
- Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 359 Or. 63 (review standard for whether correct legal standard guided discretion)
- Sarich v. State, 352 Or. 601 (requires correct legal standard as prerequisite to discretionary decision)
- Olson v. Olson, 218 Or. App. 1 (trial court must make record reflecting exercise of discretion)
- Mayfield v. State, 302 Or. 631 (discusses error where court fails to exercise discretion or document reasons)
- McCarthy v. Oregon Freeze Dry, Inc., 327 Or. 185 (court must exercise discretion according to relevant legal criteria)