State v. Hernandez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hernandez

385 P.3d 1278, 282 Or. App. 627, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1476

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 30, 2016

DocketD150229M; A159767

StatusPublished

This text of 385 P.3d 1278 (State v. Hernandez) 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. Hernandez, 385 P.3d 1278, 282 Or. App. 627, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1476 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, a jury found defendant guilty of third-degree theft. ORS 164.043. She appeals the resulting judgment of conviction.

The circumstances underlying this case are as follows. The complainant was playing video poker in a pizza restaurant. He put $100 into a video-poker machine and, shortly thereafter, briefly left the room to help his wife with their baby. When the complainant returned to the room, he found that someone had taken his video-poker ticket with the remaining cash credit on it. He reported the theft and, when police arrived, the complainant told a responding officer, Mace, that defendant had been the only other person in the video-poker room and that he did not know her beyond seeing her around the neighborhood. The complainant testified at trial that he did not know defendant aside from having seen her around. During an interview with police, defendant told the interviewing officer that she and the complainant had had an affair, and that he had given her the video-poker ticket as a gift.

At trial, the state offered testimony from Mace regarding what the complainant had reported regarding the theft. Defendant objected on hearsay grounds. The court overruled the objection, allowing, as a prior consistent statement under OEC 801(4)(a)(B), Mace’s testimony that the complainant had reported that he did not know defendant.¹

On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the challenged statements under OEC 801 (4)(a)(B). Specifically, she contends that the complainant’s statements to Mace were not admissible as prior consistent statements because they did not predate his motive to [629]*629fabricate. See State v. Bautista, 271 Or App 247, 256, 351 P3d 79 (2015) (under OEC 801(4)(a)(B), rebutting prior statement must have been given before the alleged motive to fabricate arose). The state agrees that the complainant’s “purported motive to fabricate (his desire to cover up a past affair with defendant) would have existed before the [complainant] made his past consistent statement to * * * Mace that he did not know defendant personally.” Accordingly, the state concedes that the trial court erred in admitting the complainant’s statements to Mace as prior consistent statements under OEC 801(4)(a)(B). We agree, and accept the concession. Furthermore, because the credibility of the complainant was a central issue in the case, the error was not harmless.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, a jury found defendant guilty of third-degree theft. ORS 164.043. She appeals the resulting judgment of conviction.

The circumstances underlying this case are as follows. The complainant was playing video poker in a pizza restaurant. He put $100 into a video-poker machine and, shortly thereafter, briefly left the room to help his wife with their baby. When the complainant returned to the room, he found that someone had taken his video-poker ticket with the remaining cash credit on it. He reported the theft and, when police arrived, the complainant told a responding officer, Mace, that defendant had been the only other person in the video-poker room and that he did not know her beyond seeing her around the neighborhood. The complainant testified at trial that he did not know defendant aside from having seen her around. During an interview with police, defendant told the interviewing officer that she and the complainant had had an affair, and that he had given her the video-poker ticket as a gift.

At trial, the state offered testimony from Mace regarding what the complainant had reported regarding the theft. Defendant objected on hearsay grounds. The court overruled the objection, allowing, as a prior consistent statement under OEC 801(4)(a)(B), Mace’s testimony that the complainant had reported that he did not know defendant.¹

On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the challenged statements under OEC 801 (4)(a)(B). Specifically, she contends that the complainant’s statements to Mace were not admissible as prior consistent statements because they did not predate his motive to [629]*629fabricate. See State v. Bautista, 271 Or App 247, 256, 351 P3d 79 (2015) (under OEC 801(4)(a)(B), rebutting prior statement must have been given before the alleged motive to fabricate arose). The state agrees that the complainant’s “purported motive to fabricate (his desire to cover up a past affair with defendant) would have existed before the [complainant] made his past consistent statement to * * * Mace that he did not know defendant personally.” Accordingly, the state concedes that the trial court erred in admitting the complainant’s statements to Mace as prior consistent statements under OEC 801(4)(a)(B). We agree, and accept the concession. Furthermore, because the credibility of the complainant was a central issue in the case, the error was not harmless.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 P.3d 1278, 282 Or. App. 627, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hernandez-orctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack