State v. Manning

Under Art. I, sec. 11 of the Oregon Constitution and Sixth Amendment, a defendant is guaranteed a right to make a closing argument based on evidence if it is not based on impermissible speculation that is “insufficient to support an inference when the conclusion to be drawn from it requires too great an influential leap”. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460 (2004).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction unlawful use of a weapon, menacing constituting domestic violence, and two counts of reckless endangerment of another person. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s sustainment of the prosecutor’s objection to his closing argument. The objection came after defense counsel introduced a new theory for why the victim was motivated to testify against Defendant. On appeal, Defendant argued that the objection infringed on his constitutional rights because the argument contained “reasonable inferences drawn from logic and common knowledge”. In response, the State argued that the trial court did not err because defendant’s argument was based on speculative facts not in evidence. Under Art. I, sec. 11 of the Oregon Constitution and Sixth Amendment, a defendant is guaranteed a right to make a closing argument based on evidence if it is not based on impermissible speculation that is “insufficient to support an inference when the conclusion to be drawn from it requires too great an influential leap." State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460 (2004). The court held that the trial court did not err because the conclusion required “too great of an influential leap” and “stacking of inferences to the point of speculation” because Defendant never impeached the victim's credibility nor did he try to develop any testimony regarding the victim having knowledge of the DHS report. Affirmed.