State v. Scott

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 12-14-2016
  • Case #: A157609
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wilson, S.J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

If a defendant fails to make an argument at the trial court that they are now making on appeal, the appellate court can decline to review that argument on the basis that is not preserved.

Defendant appealed his conviction of fifteen sex offenses related to victim A. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence he proffered concerning an allegedly false allegation of sexual abuse made by A against Defendant’s wife. Defendant argued that such an exclusion violated his right to confrontation under the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions, and that the Court’s holding in State v. LeClair, 83 Or App 121 (1986), provides him the right to cross-examine A because there was evidence that A had made prior false accusations. The State responded that Defendant failed to raise the objection under the appropriate rule of evidence, the first motion by Defendant under OEC 412, and later OEC 404(2)(3), but now seeks to merely cross-examine A as to the allegedly false allegations under the framework of State v. LeClair. The Court held that Defendant’s arguments at the trial court did not give reason for the court to believe that it was expected to conduct a LeClair category-three balancing test. Defendant did not preserve in the trial court the error he asserted on appeal, and Court declined to review. Affirmed.  

Advanced Search