State v. GRANDEL YAU CHIN PANG

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. GRANDEL YAU CHIN PANG

243 P.3d 135, 238 Or. App. 754, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1436

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 17, 2010

DocketC063289CR; A138995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 P.3d 135 (State v. GRANDEL YAU CHIN PANG) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. GRANDEL YAU CHIN PANG, 243 P.3d 135, 238 Or. App. 754, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1436 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*755 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of first-degree sodomy. We write to address only his contention that the trial court erred in admitting two experts’ diagnoses of child sexual abuse in the absence of physical evidence supporting those diagnoses, see State v. Southard, 347 Or 127, 218 P3d 104 (2009), and reject his remaining contentions without discussion. Specifically, defendant asserts that, pursuant to the Oregon Supreme Court’s holding in Southard, the trial court erred when, in the absence of physical evidence, it admitted a diagnosis of child sexual abuse by a CARES nurse and a provisional diagnosis of child sexual abuse from a clinical social worker. Although defendant did object to the admission of the diagnoses on various bases, it is unclear that any of his objections were sufficient to preserve his current argument that admission of the diagnoses was improper for the reasons addressed in Southard. However, regardless of whether defendant’s assertion was properly preserved, the trial court’s error in admitting that evidence is plain error and, for the reasons expressed in State v. Merrimon, 234 Or App 515, 522, 228 P3d 666 (2010), and State v. Lovern, 234 Or App 502, 513-14, 228 P3d 688 (2010), we exercise our discretion to correct it. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*755 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of first-degree sodomy. We write to address only his contention that the trial court erred in admitting two experts’ diagnoses of child sexual abuse in the absence of physical evidence supporting those diagnoses, see State v. Southard, 347 Or 127, 218 P3d 104 (2009), and reject his remaining contentions without discussion. Specifically, defendant asserts that, pursuant to the Oregon Supreme Court’s holding in Southard, the trial court erred when, in the absence of physical evidence, it admitted a diagnosis of child sexual abuse by a CARES nurse and a provisional diagnosis of child sexual abuse from a clinical social worker. Although defendant did object to the admission of the diagnoses on various bases, it is unclear that any of his objections were sufficient to preserve his current argument that admission of the diagnoses was improper for the reasons addressed in Southard. However, regardless of whether defendant’s assertion was properly preserved, the trial court’s error in admitting that evidence is plain error and, for the reasons expressed in State v. Merrimon, 234 Or App 515, 522, 228 P3d 666 (2010), and State v. Lovern, 234 Or App 502, 513-14, 228 P3d 688 (2010), we exercise our discretion to correct it. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 P.3d 135, 238 Or. App. 754, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grandel-yau-chin-pang-orctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack