State v. Krieger

“When the trial court has excluded testimony, the proponent of the disputed evidence must make an offer of proof. State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 128, 764 P2d 220 (1988). . .Error is not always sufficient to warrant reversal. We will affirm a judgment of conviction notwithstanding the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).”

Defendant appealed conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence that one of the victims had previously been sexually abused. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence would have explained why the victim was vigilant against sexual abuse. In response, the State argued that Defendant’s arguments at trial, without further proof, were insufficient to show reversible error. “When the trial court has excluded testimony, the proponent of the disputed evidence must make an offer of proof. State v. Affeld, 307 Or 125, 128, 764 P2d 220 (1988). . .Error is not always sufficient to warrant reversal. We will affirm a judgment of conviction notwithstanding the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).” The Court of Appeals held that Defendant’s offer of proof was not enough to indicate whether the exclusion of the testimony was prejudicial. Affirmed.