State v. Pollock

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-22-2012
  • Case #: A143631
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When an out of court statement is permitted into trial and the opposing party has been provided with an opportunity for in-court cross-examination, their Sixth Amendment Right under the Confrontation Clause is not violated.

Defendant appealed his first-degree sodomy conviction. Defendant stayed home with his daughter and stepdaughter, and babysat the neighbor’s three year-old daughter/victim. The victim told her mother that Defendant inappropriately contacted her when she would go to work. At trial, statements made by the victim on DVD and testimony from the victim’s mother regarding her conversation with the victim were admitted. Defendant was found guilty of first-degree sodomy. Defendant contended that admitting these out of court statements violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause because he did not have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the victim. The Court reasoned that the victim took the stand at trial which provided Defendant with an opportunity for cross-examination. During cross-examination, Defendant failed to ask about victim’s statements. Therefore, the Court held there was no violation of the Confrontation’s Clause. Affirmed.

Advanced Search