DOCSLIB.ORG

Benjamin Gutman #160599 Kristin A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Benjamin Gutman #160599 Kristin A May 8, 2018 02:27 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Clackamas County Circuit Court Case No. CR1400136 Plaintiff-Respondent, Respondent on Review, CA A158854 v. S065355 KELLY LEE EDMONDS, Defendant-Appellant Petitioner on Review. PETITIONER’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS Review the decision of the Court of Appeals on Appeal from a Judgment of the Circuit Court for Clackamas County Honorable Douglas V. Van Dyk, Judge Opinion Filed: June 1, 2017 Author of Opinion: Linder, S. J. Concurring Judges: Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, ERNEST G. LANNET #013248 ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM #753239 Chief Defender Attorney General Criminal Appellate Section BENJAMIN GUTMAN #160599 KRISTIN A. CARVETH #052157 Solicitor General Senior Deputy Public Defender DAVID B. THOMPSON #951246 Office of Public Defense Services Assistant Attorney General 1175 Court Street NE 400 Justice Building Salem, OR 97301 1162 Court Street NE [email protected] Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (503) 378-3349 [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner on Review Phone: (503) 378-4402 Attorneys for Respondent on Review 63739 05/18 i TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................ 1 Questions Presented and Proposed Rules of Law .......................................... 2 Summary of Argument .................................................................................. 4 Historical and Procedural Facts ..................................................................... 8 Argument ..................................................................................................... 13 I. Introduction ........................................................................................ 13 II. The state cannot rely on OEC 803(6) as an alternative basis for affirmance because law enforcement reports are inadmissible against a criminal defendant under OEC 803(8)(b). ............................................. 14 A. A defendant cannot be expected to have preserved a response in the trial court to an argument the state did not make until appeal; to require preservation under those circumstances undermines procedural fairness. ................................................................................................. 14 B. A law enforcement report is not admissible against a criminal defendant even if it meets the requirements of the business records exception. .............................................................................................. 18 III. Even if this court concludes that the transcript could be admitted under OEC 803(6), notwithstanding OEC 803(8), this court should not affirm on that basis. ............................................................................ 30 A. A reviewing court cannot affirm on an alternative basis if the factual record could have developed differently had the prevailing party relied on the alternative basis below. ........................................... 30 B. This court cannot say that the factual record developed below was necessarily the same record that would have developed if the state had relied on the business records exception below. .................... 33 ii C. This court should not affirm on an alternative basis when that alternative ground would have involved a discretionary decision by the trial court if it had been raised there in the first instance. ............... 40 IV. The erroneous admission of C’s 2002 statement to detectives was not harmless. ...................................................................................... 42 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................455 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Davis v. O’Brien, 320 Or 729, 891 P2d 1307 (1995) ................................................................... 16 Lindell v. Kalugin, 353 Or 338, 297 P3d 1266 (2013) ................................................................... 26 Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634, 20 P3d 180 (2001) ............................ 4, 7, 8, 12, 17, 30, 31, 33, 40 Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or 209, 191 P3d 637 (2008) .............................................................. 15, 16 PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) ............................................................ 20, 21 State v. Burgess, 352 Or 499, 287 P3d 1093 (2012) ................................................................... 33 State v. Edmonds, 285 Or App 855, 398 P3d 998 (2017) ...................................... 2, 11, 12, 15, 36 State v. Edmonds, 362 Or 482, 412 P3d 194 (2018) .................................................... 2, 13, 15, 45 State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 206 P3d 1042 (2009) ............................................................ 20, 21 iii State v. Guzek, 322 Or 245, 906 P2d 272 (1995) ..................................................................... 22 State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 743 P2d 157 (1987) ..................................................................... 42 State v. Kuznetsov, 345 Or 479, 199 P3d 311 (2008) ..................................................................... 18 State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 831 P2d 666 (1992) ..................................................................... 39 State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 786 P2d 111 (1990) ....................................................................... 23 State v. Nascimento, 360 Or 28, 379 P3d 484 (2016) ................................................................ 32, 33 State v. Pinnell, 311 Or 98, 806 P2d 110 (1991) ....................................................................... 14 State v. Rodriguez-Castillo, 345 Or 39, 188 P3d 268 (2012) ................................................................ 41, 42 State v. Scally, 92 Or App 149, 758 P2d 365 (1988) ............................................ 15, 16, 17, 40 State v. Townsend, 290 Or App 919, __ P3d __ (2018) ................................................................. 17 Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 104 S Ct 2052, 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984) ...................................... 39 U of O Co-Op v. Dept of Rev, 273 Or 539, 542 P2d 900 (1975) ..................................................................... 23 United States v. Brown, 9 F3d 907 (11th Cir 1993), cert den, 513 US 852 (1994) ............................... 27 United States v. Cain, 615 F2d 380 (5th Cir 1980) ............................................................................. 27 iv United States v. Oates, 560 F2d 45 (2nd Cir 1977) ..................................................... 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 United States v. Orellano-Blanco, 294 F3d 1143 (9th Cir 2002) ........................................................................... 27 United States v. Orozco, 590 F2d 789 (9th Cir), cert den, 442 US 920 (1979) ...................................... 29 United States v. Sims, 617 F2d 1371 (9th Cir 1980) ........................................................................... 28 Constitutional Provision and Statutes Or Const, Art VII (Amended), § 3 ...................................................................... 42 FRE 803 .................................................................. 6, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, i OEC 103 .............................................................................................................. 42 OEC 801 .............................................................................................................. 14 OEC 802 ................................................................................................. 13, 19, 22 OEC 803 .................................................... 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41 OEC 804 .............................................................................................................. 14 OEC 805 .............................................................................................................. 13 ORS 174.020 ....................................................................................................... 22 ORS 41.690 ......................................................................................................... 40 v Other Authorities 120 Cong Rec H12254 (daily ed Dec 18, 1974) ................................................. 25 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §7047, at 190 (3rd ed. 2011) ...................... 28 House Bill 2030 in 1981 ..................................................................................... 23 Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 803.01 (6th ed 2013) .................................... 22, 23, 28, 41 Or Laws 1981, ch 892, § 64 ................................................................................ 23 S.Rep. No. 1277, 93d Cong., 2d Sess ................................................................. 29 PETITIONER’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant was charged with the rape of a five-year-old girl that occurred more than 20 years ago, when his then-wife ran a daycare out of their home. At trial, defendant claimed that the now 25-year-old victim, C, had fabricated a memory of the event and was confusing it with subsequent sexual abuse committed against her by her stepfather. The state presented little evidence that C had discussed the rape with anyone before she reported it to police as an adult. Critical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents
    Michigan Rules of Evidence Table of Contents RULES 101–106 .......................................................................................................... 4 Rule 101. Scope. ....................................................................................................... 4 Rule 102. Purpose. ................................................................................................... 4 Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence. ............................................................................... 4 Rule 104. Preliminary Questions. ........................................................................... 5 Rule 105. Limited Admissibility. ............................................................................. 5 Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements. ................. 5 RULES 201–202 .......................................................................................................... 5 Rule 201. Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts. .................................................... 5 Rule 202. Judicial Notice of Law. ............................................................................ 6 RULES 301–302 .......................................................................................................... 6 Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Actions and Proceedings. ................................... 6 Rule 302. Presumptions in Criminal Cases. ........................................................... 6 RULES 401–411 .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial. the Following Are Not Excluded by the Hearsay Rule, Even Th
    Article 8. Hearsay. Rule 801. Definitions and exception for admissions of a party-opponent. The following definitions apply under this Article: (a) Statement. – A "statement" is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him as an assertion. (b) Declarant. – A "declarant" is a person who makes a statement. (c) Hearsay. – "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. (d) Exception for Admissions by a Party-Opponent. – A statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party and it is (A) his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity, or (B) a statement of which he has manifested his adoption or belief in its truth, or (C) a statement by a person authorized by him to make a statement concerning the subject, or (D) a statement by his agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship or (E) a statement by a coconspirator of such party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.) Rule 802. Hearsay rule. Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by statute or by these rules. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.) Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (1) Present Sense Impression.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • OVERVIEW of WRITTEN RECORDS EXCEPTIONS, FRE 803 (5) Et Seq
    17. WRITTEN RECORDS EXCEPTIONS, FRE 803 (5) et seq. A. OVERVIEW 1. There are lots of exceptions for written documents found in Rule 803. We will focus on the two most important ones: a) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity, 803(6), which most people call by its nickname, Business Records. b) Public records, 803(8), also sometimes called official records 2. These exceptions are tricky because there is a tendency to confuse the name of the rule with whether it fits into an exception. A document is not a “business record” because it is the record of a business, nor is it a “public record” because it comes from a government office. The only question is whether the foundation has been laid, and they are detailed. A document is only a piece of paper until someone lays a foundation. If you're suing the welfare dept, and trying to get their records into evidence, they could be business records, official records, statements of the opposing party, past recollection recorded, or not hearsay at all because not offered for their truth, depending on the circumstances and what kind of foundation you can lay. 3. These records frequently have hearsay within hearsay problems . Business records may describe both the personal knowledge of employees and also things told to employees by outsiders. The former is covered by the business record exception, the latter is not. It needs its own reason why it is not hearsay. 4. You must distinguish business records from documents with independent legal significance, from admissions of the party-opponent.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 - South Carolina Rules of Evidence
    TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - SOUTH CAROLINA RULES OF EVIDENCE ................................... 1 ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................................... 1 Rule 101. Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Rule 102. Purpose and Construction ........................................................................................................ 2 Rule 103. Rulings on Evidence ................................................................................................................... 2 (a) Effect of erroneous ruling. .................................................................................................................. 2 (1) Objection. ............................................................................................................................................. 2 (2) Offer of proof. ...................................................................................................................................... 2 (b) Record of offer and ruling. ................................................................................................................. 2 (c) Hearing of jury. .................................................................................................................................... 3 Rule 104. Preliminary Questions ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Documents and the Rule Against Multiple Hearsay Gregg Kettles
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 39 | Number 3 Article 2 1-1-1999 Ancient Documents and the Rule Against Multiple Hearsay Gregg Kettles Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gregg Kettles, Ancient Documents and the Rule Against Multiple Hearsay, 39 Santa Clara L. Rev. 719 (1999). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol39/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANCIENT DOCUMENTS AND THE RULE AGAINST MULTIPLE HEARSAY Gregg Kettles* I. INTRODUCTION This article analyzes whether statements in a document properly authenticated as "ancient" pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8) are subject to the rule against multiple hearsay. I conclude that the rule against multiple hearsay applies to such statements in ancient documents. In order for a given statement in an ancient document to be admissi- ble to prove the truth of the matter asserted, the statement must either be within the personal knowledge of the author or qualify under a separate exception to the hearsay rule. For each level of hearsay present within the document, the party offering the hearsay evidence must demonstrate that an exception to the hearsay rule applies. Federal Rule of Evidence 802 provides that "[h]earsay' is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress."2 Rule 803 sets out a num- ber of exceptions to this rule, including the following: "(16) [s]tatements in ancient documents" and "[s]tatements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established."3 Authenticating a document as "an- cient" is accomplished by satisfying the straightforward * The author received his J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • First District Court of Appeal State of Florida ______
    FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D19-1768 _____________________________ MIKEL GARY MCCLUSKY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Linda F. McCallum, Judge. February 11, 2021 TANENBAUM, J. In 2018 the State charged McClusky with committing two separate acts of sexual battery on a victim through the use of physical force. The charged crimes had occurred twelve years earlier. Based on the jury’s verdict, the trial court adjudicated McClusky guilty on both counts, but with one count excluding the punishment-enhancing, use-of-force element. McClusky received concurrent sentences of life and fifteen years in prison. On appeal, he makes three claims, but none has merit. We briefly address each to explain why. First, McClusky contends there is fundamental error in the trial court’s allowing, without objection, a nurse to offer testimony derived from her report, which was prepared at the time she conducted a sexual assault examination of the victim. The nurse testified that she had special training in the treatment of sexual assault victims and that she had conducted many sexual assault examinations. She worked at a sexual assault resource center at the health department, which kept the reports that nurses like her would generate during their examinations. The nurse testified that she did not have an independent recollection of the examination she conducted of the victim in 2006, but that she had prepared a report in conjunction with that examination so there would be “a record of what happened.” She acknowledged that she needed to refer to the report to “testify accurately.” The State asked the trial court for permission to have the witness testify while referencing her report.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence -- Hearsay -- Admissibility of Medical Records Joel B
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 13 | Number 3 Article 9 4-1-1935 Evidence -- Hearsay -- Admissibility of Medical Records Joel B. Adams Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joel B. Adams, Evidence -- Hearsay -- Admissibility of Medical Records, 13 N.C. L. Rev. 326 (1935). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol13/iss3/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW solution of which may change the entire course of government and in- dustry. If the N.I.R.A. or the A.A.A. is to be interpreted by any court, that is, if any court ever has jurisdiction, it will be a federal court. No one can be a more interested party than one whom the stat- utes and codes in express terms purport to affect. It is frequently said that an interest in security, the preservation of social equilibrium, and an avoidance of unnecessary disputes underlie the declaratory judg- ment acts. Therefore, when jurisdiction hinges on the question as to who may sue under a given statute, it would seem more in keeping with the appropriate social policy to hold a private suit sufficient for a declaratory judgment. HARRY W. McGALLIARD. Evidence-Hearsay-Admissibility of Medical Records. Plaintiff brought an action under a war risk policy to recover for alleged total disability.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2021 Georgia Bar Examination Sample Answers
    February 2021 Georgia Bar Examination Sample Answers The following answers to essay questions and MPT items were written by applicants for the February 2021 Bar Exam. Each of these answers received a high score from the Examiner who wrote and graded the essay question or who graded the MPT item. The answers are provided to be helpful to applicants as they prepare for a future exam. (They are not provided to appeal a score received on a prior exam, as such regrades are prohibited by Part B, Section 13 of our Rules.) Please note that the MPT items are copyrighted by NCBE and are posted with the permission of NCBE. They are for your personal use only and may not be reproduced or distributed in any way. Essay 1 – Sample Answer 1 The Trial Court indeed erred in three ways. First, it should not have excluded Dr. Apple's testimony in its entirety. It merely should have abided by the policy against disclosure of confidential communications between physician and patient. Second, the Trial Court erred in allowing Plaintiff's statement that she went to her family doctor instead of the emergency room based on advice by Big Box's insurance adjuster. Third, the Trial Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to disregard the inflammatory remark about Big Box's financial status made by Plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments. However, the court did not err in allowing Plaintiff's memory to be refreshed, in allowing Plaintiff's counsel to use past recollection recorded, or by refusing to declare a mistrial for the inflammatory remark made by Plaintiff's counsel in closing.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Cases
    RECENT CASES to the common sense of justice and is widely used in out-of-court settlements,4o there are, as yet, no techniques in contract law by which the court can achieve this result. Evidence-Testimonial Recollection-Present Recollection of Past Recollection Recorded in Memorandum Now Lost--[Federal].-The plaintiff intervened in a corporate receivership proceeding, claiming to be the owner of 10,126 shares of lost stock. Although he remembered purchasing the stock, he admitted that he had no present recollection as to the number of shares. He testified, however, that two years previous to his original petition to intervene he had seen a memorandum, written by him shortly after the stock transactions, which stated the number of shares purchased. The memorandum had since been lost or stolen, but the plaintiff recalled its contents and was thus able to testify as to the amount of stock he had bought. He also testified concerning his habits in the writing of such memoranda and asserted that when he saw this particular memorandum he had recognized his handwriting and had known the memorandum to be correct. Upon appeal from a disallowance of the plaintiff's claim, held, that the past recollection recorded, reflected in the memorandum, was suf- ficient to sustain the validity of the claim. Putnam v. Moore.' The opinions of both the district court and the circuit court of appeals are indicative of the confusion prevalent in regard to the introduction of memoranda into evidence. The lower court refused to admit the testimony of the plaintiff on the ground that he had no independent recollection which thememorandum might serve to revive.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Mock Trial Rules of Evidence
    WASHINGTON MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE Introduction In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e. oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and to exclude evidence deemed incompetent, irrelevant, untrustworthy, unfairly prejudicial, or otherwise improper. If it appears that a rule of evidence is being violated, an attorney may raise an objection to the judge. The judge then decides whether the rule has been violated and whether the evidence must be excluded from the record of the trial. In the absence of a properly made objection, however, the judge will probably admit the evidence. The burden is on the mock trial team to know the Rules of Evidence and to be able to use them to protect or advance their cases and fairly limit the actions of opposing counsel and their witnesses. For purposes of mock trial competition, the Rules of Evidence have been modified and simplified. These evidence rules are based on the National High School Mock Trial Rules of Evidence, which in turn are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, and its numbering system. Where Federal rule numbers or letters are skipped, those rules were deemed not applicable to mock trial procedure. Not all judges will interpret the Rules of Evidence (or procedure) the same way, and mock trial attorneys should be prepared to point out specific rules (quoting them, if necessary) and to argue persuasively for the interpretation and application of the rule they think appropriate. The Mock Trial Competition Rules and these Rules of Evidence govern high school mock trial competitions in Washington State.
    [Show full text]
  • PREPARING for EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS Family Law Section Program
    PREPARING FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS Family Law Section Program Heather L. King Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel & Robertson, P.C. 181 Grand Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-2710 [email protected] Co-Author: Warren Cole The Law Office of Warren Cole 3355 West Alabama-Suite 825 Houston, Texas 77098 Phone: (713) 275-4444 [email protected] Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.! Heather L. King Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel & Robertson 181 Grand Avenue, Suite 225 Southlake, Texas 76092 (817) 481-2710 / 481-2637 fax [email protected] Heather L. King is a Managing Partner at Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel & Robertson, with offices in Southlake, Denton, Plano and Dallas, Texas. Ms. King is AV rated in Martindale Hubble, is certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in family law, and is a Fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. She is a past President of the Tarrant County Family Law Bar Association, immediate past President of the Tarrant County Bar Association, and incoming President of the Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists. She is a Council Member of the Family Law Counsel of the State Bar of Texas and has served on numerous committees in that regard. She is recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer by Texas Monthly Magazine, a Top Attorney featured in Fort Worth, Texas Magazine, Top Fifty Female Attorneys in Texas, Texas Monthly Magazine, Top Fifty Female Super Lawyers, Texas Monthly Magazine, Top 100 Lawyers in Dallas Fort Worth, Texas Monthly Magazine, Top Women Lawyers in Dallas by D Magazine, and is named as one of The Best Lawyers In America.
    [Show full text]