State v. Halsey

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Halsey

840 P.2d 730, 116 Or. App. 225, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2015

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 4, 1992

DocketT91-5723; CA A73007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 840 P.2d 730 (State v. Halsey) 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. Halsey, 840 P.2d 730, 116 Or. App. 225, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2015 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted for speeding. At the beginning of the trial, the court had the citation-issuing officer and defendant sworn as witnesses. Defendant was unrepresented. The officer testified about the facts leading to the citation. The court then asked defendant to say what he wanted to say. Defendant said: “I was expecting to have him up here so I could question him, Your Honor.” To that the court replied: “Things are all different from TV and real life. Go ahead.” Defendant was not permitted to cross-examine the officer.

“It is axiomatic that a party against whom a witness is called has the right to cross examine the [witness].” Best v. Tavenner, 189 Or 46, 53, 218 P2d 471 (1950). “The opportunity [for] cross-examination is an essential safeguard of the accuracy and completeness of testimony, and it is a right and not a mere privilege.” Jones v. Siladic, 52 Or App 807, 813, 629 P2d 875, rev den 291 Or 662 (1981). A trial court has some power to regulate cross-examination, see, e.g., OEC 611; OEC 405, but it does not have the power wholly to deny the right to cross-examine.

The error was not harmless.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted for speeding. At the beginning of the trial, the court had the citation-issuing officer and defendant sworn as witnesses. Defendant was unrepresented. The officer testified about the facts leading to the citation. The court then asked defendant to say what he wanted to say. Defendant said: “I was expecting to have him up here so I could question him, Your Honor.” To that the court replied: “Things are all different from TV and real life. Go ahead.” Defendant was not permitted to cross-examine the officer.

“It is axiomatic that a party against whom a witness is called has the right to cross examine the [witness].” Best v. Tavenner, 189 Or 46, 53, 218 P2d 471 (1950). “The opportunity [for] cross-examination is an essential safeguard of the accuracy and completeness of testimony, and it is a right and not a mere privilege.” Jones v. Siladic, 52 Or App 807, 813, 629 P2d 875, rev den 291 Or 662 (1981). A trial court has some power to regulate cross-examination, see, e.g., OEC 611; OEC 405, but it does not have the power wholly to deny the right to cross-examine.

The error was not harmless.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 P.2d 730, 116 Or. App. 225, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-halsey-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack