State v. Phillips

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 10-15-2014
  • Case #: A148398
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Nakamoto, J.; and Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A notice of the introduction into evidence of hearsay statements under OEC 803(18a)(b) need not set out verbatim the statements that the State intends to offer.

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of first-degree sex abuse, arguing that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce hearsay statements contained in a video-recorded interview of the victim of the abuse. The victim did not testify at the trial due to her young age. The amended notice to Defendant specified, in part, that the State intended to offer as evidence “[t]he complete statement made by [the victim] to [the interviewer] at [the location of the interview] . . . on or about October 14, 2010 as captured in the discovered DVD and previously discovered.” Defendant argued that the State failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to offer the statements, as required by OEC 803(18a)(b), because it failed to identify the substance of the statements, and failed to identify the witness or means by which the state intended to introduce its statements. The State argued that the notice was adequate. The Court noted that the notice provided Defendant with the date on which the statements were made, the place at which the statements were made, and where the particular statements could be found. It reasoned that the DVD contained a finite number of statements, and that Defendant possessed the DVD and could easily ascertain the substance of the statements. The Court found that the notice was not required to set out the statements verbatim, and found that because the notice explicitly referred to the DVD, the State properly identified the means by which the statements would be introduced; the language of the notice indicated that the State intended to introduce the statements through the recording itself . The Court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. Affirmed.

Advanced Search