Hill v. Coursey

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 12-16-2015
  • Case #: A154700
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J.; Garrett, J.; & Schuman, S.J. Per Curiam.
  • Full Text Opinion

A court-appointed attorney is not constitutionally inadequate when the attorney fails to object to testimony of an out-of-court statement detailing an opinion about the credibility of another witness.

Petitioner was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Petitioner appealed a judgment denying post-conviction relief, arguing that his attorney failed to object to testimony by an investigating officer, which Petitioner alleged impermissibly questioned the credibility of another witness. The officer testified that she had told Petitioner that she believed the victim’s allegations against Petitioner were true. The Court held that, while a witness may not comment on another witness’s credibility, the statement made by the officer was merely recounting a permissible out-of-court statement. The Court therefore held that Petitioner’s counsel was not inadequate for failing to object to the officer’s statement, and that the post-conviction court did not err when it denied Petitioner post-conviction relief. Affirmed.

Advanced Search