- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 10-20-2021
- Case #: A168481
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J.; & Mooney, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a conviction for indecent exposure. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to exclude statements the arresting officer made regarding how she would act if “falsely accused of a crime.” On appeal, Defendant argued that the officer’s testimony was irrelevant and implied that Defendant was guilty because he failed to act like an innocent person. In response, the State argued that (1) defendant did not adequately preserve the issue, (2) “the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence,” and (3) if there was error, “that error was harmless.” Lay opinion testimony is not relevant to prove the truth or falsity of a person’s statement. See State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 334, 380 P3d 932 (2016). “If there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict, [an appellate court] will not reverse on the basis of that error.” State v. Nguyen, 293 Or App 492, 498, 429 P3d 410 (2018). The Court found that Defendant’s pretrial motion adequately preserved the issue on appeal. The Court further found that the officer’s opinion was irrelevant because it “did not express an opinion regarding the credibility of defendant’s denial.” Finally, the Court could not conclude that the erroneous admission of the officer’s opinion of Defendant’s demeanor “had little likelihood of affecting the verdict.” Reversed and remanded.