State v. GRAUE

245 P.3d 1289, 240 Or. App. 460
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 19, 2011
DocketCR0700412 A138031
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 P.3d 1289 (State v. GRAUE) 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. GRAUE, 245 P.3d 1289, 240 Or. App. 460 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

245 P.3d 1289 (2011)
240 Or. App. 460

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Scott Vincent GRAUE, Defendant-Appellant.

CR0700412; A138031.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted December 16, 2010.
Decided January 19, 2011.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Ernest G. Lannet, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Anna M. Joyce, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Appeals, filed the brief for respondent.

Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and ROSENBLUM, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for multiple counts of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony from a CARES nurse practitioner diagnosing child sexual abuse in the absence of any supporting physical evidence. See State v. Southard, 347 Or. 127, 218 P.3d 104 (2009). Although defendant did object to the admission of the diagnosis as scientific evidence, it is unclear that his objection was sufficient to preserve his current argument that admission of the diagnosis was improper pursuant to Southard. However, the trial court's error in admitting that evidence is plain error and, for the reasons set forth in State v. Merrimon, 234 Or.App. 515, 522, 228 P.3d 666 (2010), and State v. Lovern, 234 Or.App. 502, 513-14, 228 P.3d 688 (2010), we exercise our discretion to correct that error. In light of our resolution of that issue, we do not reach defendant's second assignment of error.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Graue v. Miller
D. Oregon, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 P.3d 1289, 240 Or. App. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-graue-orctapp-2011.