State v. Wirfs, 281 P.3d 616

Defendant was convicted of one count of second-degree sodomy and two counts of third-degree sodomy.
On appeal, he raised five assignments of error, including objections to redirect examination of an expert and challenges to verdict unanimity.
Defendant's defense emphasized unreliability of his confession and argued witnesses gave inconsistent statements; he called Dr. Truhn as defense expert.
Dr. Truhn testified that defendant had a pervasive developmental disorder NOS, social immaturity, and average IQ, with the report indicating social functioning at eight to nine years old.
During redirect, defense sought to elicit testimony tying social difficulties to normal intelligence to rebut implications about the confession; objections were sustained by the trial court.
The court reversed and remanded on the redirect issue, declined to address several other assignments, and discussed preservation standards and scope of redirect examination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining objections on redirect.	Truhn's social vs. intellectual age testimony relevant to confession reliability.	Questions on redirect were within scope to rebut cross-examination and clarify the diagnosis.	Trial court erred; redirect scope allowed
Whether the exclusion of redirect testimony was harmless error.	Exclusion was harmless because reliability of confession hinged on other issues.	Exclusion prevented essential scientific testimony that could affect verdict.	Not harmless; reversal warranted

State v. White, 119 Or App 424 (1993) (preservation requires stating the ground of objection)
State v. Olmstead, 310 Or 455 (1990) (offer of proof aids appellate review)
State v. Ramirez, 219 Or App 598 (2008) (scope of redirect follows cross-examination)
State v. Wise, 40 Or App 303 (1979) (redirect may extend to matters tied to cross-examination)
Ritchie v. Pittman, 144 Or 228 (1933) (broad view of cross-examination scope)