State v. Dye

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 07-09-2017
  • Case #: A155696
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The court has the ability to make an informed ruling when it divides an offer of proof into separate parts, invites arguments about that division, and then rules on the admissibility of those individual parts. State v. Ryel, 182 Or App 423, 435, 51 P3d 8 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 255 (2003). 

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction for one count of first degree unlawful sexual penetration. Defendant assigned error to the trial court excluding of expert witness testimony regarding false memory. On appeal, Defendant argued that Pumpelly is not applicable to this case because the trial court separated and analyzed the general testimony regarding false memories and the testimony applicable specifically to this case. The state argued the trial court rejected the proffered testimony in whole, and thus, under Pumpelly, Defendant is precluded from this argument on appeal. It is not error to reject an entire offer of proof if the single offer contains admissible and inadmissible material. Pumpelly v. Reeves, 273 Or 808, 812, 543 P2d 682 (1975). The court has the ability to make an informed ruling when it divides an offer of proof into separate parts, invites arguments about that division, and then rules on the admissibility of those individual parts. State v. Ryel, 182 Or App 423, 435, 51 P3d 8 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 255 (2003). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in excluding the generalized testimony because the court itself—not the Defendant—divided the testimony into separate parts. Reversed and remanded. 

Advanced Search