History
  • No items yet
midpage
548 P.3d 146
Or. Ct. App.
2024
Read the full case

Background

  • Defendant, Wellington, was convicted by a jury of 30 sexual offenses against his stepson, J., including sodomy and sexual abuse.
  • The criminal acts took place over several years, beginning when J. was roughly 10 years old; the conduct included offers of money for sexual acts.
  • At trial, the prosecution referenced other, uncharged criminal acts during closing arguments and described why only certain crimes were charged.
  • Defendant did not object at trial to the prosecutor’s comments or to testimony from J’s mother that allegedly vouched for J’s credibility.
  • Defendant appealed, claiming (1) prosecutorial misconduct and (2) that the trial court should have, on its own, stricken the vouching testimony.
  • The appellate review was for "plain error" since no objections were preserved at trial.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Prosecutorial misconduct for referencing uncharged crimes in closing Prosecutor’s comments were not improper or were not so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial Comments were improper and prejudicial, inviting jury to infer guilt from uncharged crimes Not plain error: Comments improper but not so egregious as to deny a fair trial; curable by instruction
Failure to strike vouching testimony by J’s mother Testimony not clear vouching; ambiguous and contextual Testimony clearly vouched for J’s credibility and was improper Not plain error: Testimony ambiguous, not clear vouching, legal point reasonably in dispute

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Chitwood, 370 Or 305 (prosecutor’s improper arguments amount to plain error only if so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial)
  • State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160 (sets out test for plain error review: error of law, obvious, on face of record)
  • State v. Davis, 345 Or 551 (proper jury instructions generally cure prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct)
  • State v. Brunnemer, 287 Or App 182 (defines prosecutorial misconduct and when arguments are improper)
  • State v. Charboneau, 323 Or 38 (rule against witness vouching for credibility of another witness)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Wellington
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date Published: Apr 17, 2024
Citations: 548 P.3d 146; 332 Or. App. 44; A177520
Docket Number: A177520
Court Abbreviation: Or. Ct. App.
Log In
    State v. Wellington, 548 P.3d 146