State v. Hudspeth

When deciding whether there is a Confrontation Clause violation, as a general matter, “so long as the defendant is given the full and fair opportunity for cross-examination, a witness’s lack of memory of the statements or of the veracity of the statements does not give rise to a Confrontation Clause violation.” State v. Townsend, 290 Or App 919, 922 417 P3d 571 (2018).

Defendant appealed from a conviction for multiple sex offenses. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to exclude out-of-court statements that were made by his wife. On appeal, Defendant argued that the admission of his wife’s statements violated the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because during trial his wife claimed she did not remember making her statement which resulted in his inability to adequately cross-examine her; making her out-of-court statement inadmissible. In response, the State argued that Defendant’s wife was a competent witness despite her memory loss or allegation that she did not remember her previous statement because she was still able to appear in court and be cross-examined. When deciding whether there is a Confrontation Clause violation, as a general matter, “so long as the defendant is given the full and fair opportunity for cross-examination, a witness’s lack of memory of the statements or of the veracity of the statements does not give rise to a Confrontation Clause violation.” State v. Townsend, 290 Or App 919, 922 417 P3d 571 (2018). The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court properly admitted Defendant's wife statement because Defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine his wife about her statement at trial, which satisfied his procedural confrontation rights. Affirmed.