State v. Harris

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Harris

717 P.2d 242, 78 Or. App. 490, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2615

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 9, 1986

Docket149,287; CA A33247

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 717 P.2d 242 (State v. Harris) 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. Harris, 717 P.2d 242, 78 Or. App. 490, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2615 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

[492]*492GILLETTE, P. J.,

Pro Tempore

Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing his 3 1/2 year old son. We affirmed the judgment on his original appeal. State v. Harris, 74 Or App 367, 704 P2d 553 (1985). On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court on defendant’s petition for review, we are now asked to reconsider our earlier affirmation in the light of State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 705 P2d 694 (1985). We reverse.

At defendant’s trial, the judge, after ruling that the victim was incompetent to testify due to his age, nonetheless admitted into evidence, over appropriate objections, statements made by the victim to both his mother and grandmother, which implicated defendant. The court admitted the hearsay testimony of the mother and grandmother under the residual exception to the rule against hearsay. OEC 803(24).

In State v. Campbell, supra, the court ruled that, for admission of unexcited hearsay declarations of sexual misconduct, the pertinent exception to the rule against hearsay is OEC 803(18a).¹ The availability of that specific exception excludes the use of the general residual hearsay exception in OEC 803(24). Thus, in this case, the trial court erred by admitting the hearsay statement under the residual hearsay exception. Furthermore, because the hearsay testimony went to the details of the victim’s complaint, the statements exceeded the limits of admissibility permitted by OEC 803(18a). State v. Campbell, supra, 299 Or at 646.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

[492]*492GILLETTE, P. J.,

Pro Tempore

Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing his 3 1/2 year old son. We affirmed the judgment on his original appeal. State v. Harris, 74 Or App 367, 704 P2d 553 (1985). On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court on defendant’s petition for review, we are now asked to reconsider our earlier affirmation in the light of State v. Campbell, 299 Or 633, 705 P2d 694 (1985). We reverse.

At defendant’s trial, the judge, after ruling that the victim was incompetent to testify due to his age, nonetheless admitted into evidence, over appropriate objections, statements made by the victim to both his mother and grandmother, which implicated defendant. The court admitted the hearsay testimony of the mother and grandmother under the residual exception to the rule against hearsay. OEC 803(24).

In State v. Campbell, supra, the court ruled that, for admission of unexcited hearsay declarations of sexual misconduct, the pertinent exception to the rule against hearsay is OEC 803(18a).¹ The availability of that specific exception excludes the use of the general residual hearsay exception in OEC 803(24). Thus, in this case, the trial court erred by admitting the hearsay statement under the residual hearsay exception. Furthermore, because the hearsay testimony went to the details of the victim’s complaint, the statements exceeded the limits of admissibility permitted by OEC 803(18a). State v. Campbell, supra, 299 Or at 646.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

717 P.2d 242, 78 Or. App. 490, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harris-orctapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack