State v. Townsend

“The right to confrontation is ‘satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose [the] infirmities [in the witness’s testimony] through cross-examination[.]’” State v. Quintero, 110 Or App 247, 254, 823 P2d 981 (1991) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 US 554, 558, 108 S Ct 838, 841, 98 L Ed 2d 951 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction for possessing a Schedule I narcotic. Defendant assigned error to the trial court allowing an officer to testify by reading sections of his written report because the officer could not remember the interaction with Defendant. On appeal, Defendant argued that this testimony was hearsay and violated OEC 803(8) and violated Defendant’s Federal Constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment and Defendant’s Oregon Constitutional rights under Article 1 section 11. In response, the State argued that State v. Scally, 92 Or App 149, 758 P2d 365 (1988) barred Defendant’s challenge. “The right to confrontation is ‘satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose [the] infirmities [in the witness’s testimony] through cross-examination[.]’” State v. Quintero, 110 Or App 247, 254, 823 P2d 981 (1991) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Owens, 484 US 554, 558, 108 S Ct 838, 841, 98 L Ed 2d 951 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court of Appeals held that even though the police officers did not remember the interaction with Defendant, their inability to remember did not make their cross-examination constitutionally insignificant. Affirmed.