State v. Cockrell

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 04-12-2017
  • Case #: A154053
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock C.J.; & DeHoog, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Federal due process and Oregon law does not require (1) the disclosure of a grand jury member's handwritten notes, or (2) an in camera review of those notes in court.

Defendant appealed his conviction for murder-by-abuse and criminal mistreatment.  Defendant assigned error to (1) the court’s refusal to order the state to turn over notes on a witness’s testimony to a grand jury, either before or after the witness testified at trial, and (2) the court’s refusal to conduct an in camera review of those notes.  The defendant argued he was entitled to the notes to determine if a witness had made inconsistent statements during the course of the criminal investigation and proceeding. In a grand jury trial, prior recorded witness testimony is reviewable by the defendant for a particularized purpose to examine the witness’s credibility. State v. Goldsby, 59 Or App 66, 71 (1982). The Court found that (1) the requirement to disclose grand jury documents only applied to recorded testimony, not handwritten jury notes as the defendant suggested and (2) federal due process does not require the disclosure of the grand jury notes, or an in camera review of those notes by the court. Affirmed.  

 

Advanced Search