- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 07-08-2015
- Case #: A150573
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appeals a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court issued trial management orders prior to the hearing which stated that the case was scheduled for fifteen minutes and no live testimony was to be allowed unless the party first filed a motion to do so with supporting affidavit on why the testimony could not have been provided through an affidavit or a deposition. The trial court did not allow the petitioner to call two witnesses because they believed that they did not need to present their testimony in person. The court denied the petition. The petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s orders limiting the time of the trial and imposing preconditions on calling witnesses. Because trial courts have broad discretion to control proceedings before them, the Court determined that the question to be determined in this case was whether the court’s restrictions constituted an abuse of discretion. The Court held that even if the lower court could not have acted in the manner that it did, in these circumstances it was not relevant because the petitioner would not have been prejudiced by such an error due to the fact that the testimony at issue was in relation to relatively straightforward factual issues. Affirmed.