State v. Homan

“An error in excluding evidence is harmless if there is ‘little likelihood that the error affected the jury’s verdict’” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (2003).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for one count of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons, reckless driving and recklessly endangering another person. Defendant assigned error to the trial court precluding his line of cross-examination. On appeal, Defendant argued that the cross-examination would have shown that the officer held a bias for Defendant, therefore overturning her conviction. In response, the State conceded that the trial court erred in denying the cross-examination but argued that the error was harmless. “An error in excluding evidence is harmless if there is ‘little likelihood that the error affected the jury’s verdict’” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (2003). The Court held that the error was harmless because the State “did not urge the jury to rely on Reding’s testimony,” “Reding herself acknowledged the deficiencies in her work,” and “there were ample testimonies and percipient witnesses to support the jury’s verdict.” Affirmed.