State v. H.D.E.

“In assessing the impact of potential evidentiary error in a bench trial, ‘the court’s speaking verdict and other comments must be considered in context, taking into account the circumstances in which the court made its observations and the extent to which the court’s explanation of its verdict sheds light on how it viewed the evidence.’” State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 689, 452 P3d 995 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 382 (2020).

Defendant appealed a bench trial conviction of initiating a false report, in which she claimed that a doctor assaulted her children in a waiting room. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of evidence of her “prior convictions for perjury and initiating a false claim.” The State argued that the error was harmless. “In assessing the impact of potential evidentiary error in a bench trial, ‘the court’s speaking verdict and other comments must be considered in context, taking into account the circumstances in which the court made its observations and the extent to which the court’s explanation of its verdict sheds light on how it viewed the evidence.’” State v. Reed, 299 Or App 675, 689, 452 P3d 995 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 382 (2020). The Court reasoned that, because the trial court’s speaking verdict focused on comparing Defendant’s allegations to the evidence of what happened in the waiting room, and did not mention Defendant’s previous “bad acts,” the decision was not based on evidence of Defendant’s prior convictions. Thus, there was “little likelihood that the prior acts evidence affected the verdict,” rendering the error harmless. AFFIRMED.