State v. Orellano

245 P.3d 1290, 240 Or. App. 462
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedJanuary 19, 2011
Docket08FE0184 A140970
StatusPublished

This text of 245 P.3d 1290 (State v. Orellano) 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. Orellano, 245 P.3d 1290, 240 Or. App. 462 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

245 P.3d 1290 (2011)
240 Or. App. 462

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Selvin ORELLANO, Defendant-Appellant.

08FE0184; A140970.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

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

Anne Fujita Munsey, Senior Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Elizabeth Corbridge Ranweiler, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.

Anna M. Joyce, Assistant Attorney-in-Charge, Criminal Appeals, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree sexual abuse and first-degree burglary.[1] He assigns error to the trial court's admission of expert testimony diagnosing sexual abuse in the absence of any physical evidence. See State v. Southard, 347 Or. 127, 218 P.3d 104 (2009). Although defendant did not object to the admission of the diagnosis, he contends that admission of that evidence was plain error under Southard. We agree that the admission of the evidence was 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. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

NOTES

[1] The burglary charge was based on defendant's entry into the victim's home with "the intent to commit the crime of sex abuse therein[.]"

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

Related

State v. Southard
218 P.3d 104 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2009)
State v. Lovern
228 P.3d 688 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)
State v. Merrimon
228 P.3d 666 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2010)
State v. Orellano
245 P.3d 1290 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 P.3d 1290, 240 Or. App. 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-orellano-orctapp-2011.