State v. Wood, 289 P.3d 348

B, a 12-year-old, told M that defendant, her great uncle, touched her when she was 10.
B’s mother contacted CPS and law enforcement; CARES evaluation followed.
Detective LaCrosse arranged and recorded an approximately 90-minute phone call between B and defendant.
State notified defendant pretrial it would offer hearsay statements under OEC 803(18a)(b) identified by reports to CARES staff and others.
Trial court admitted the hearsay; defendant was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse.
On appeal, court reverses due to insufficient OEC 803(18a)(b) notice and does not address sentencing issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice under OEC 803(18a)(b) was sufficient	State argues notice identified the substance and witnesses as required by Olsen/Chase	Olsen requires specific particulars; notice here insufficient	Notice insufficient; admission error reversible
Whether the error was harmless	Despite error, impact on verdict is minimal	Erroneous admission could have affected credibility	Error not harmless; reversal of conviction warranted
Whether statements were admissible under OEC 801(4)(a)(B) as prior consistent statements	Statements could be admissible to rebut fabrication charge	Moot because motive to fabricate arose after disclosure; not admissible	Rejected as independent basis; ultimately reversal based on 803(18a)(b) notice

State v. Olsen, 220 Or. App. 85 (Or. App. 2008) (requires identifying the substance and witness in 803(18a)(b) notice)
State v. Chase, 240 Or. App. 541 (Or. App. 2011) (clarifies notice must identify particulars of statements and how introduced)
State v. Iverson, 185 Or. App. 9 (Or. App. 2002) (harms analysis; dire need to assess impact of improperly admitted hearsay)
Keys v. Nadel, 325 Or. 324 (Or. 1997) (only pre-motive-consistent statements before fabrication are admissible)