State v. Simon

"[The Court] review[s] only to determine if the record and all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, supports the court's findings." See generally Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487, 443 P2d 621 (1968) (stating general standard)."

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction on a count of unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree and seven counts of sexual abuse in the first degree.  Defendant assigned error to the use of double hearsay and to the finding that he was mentally competent enough to stand trial.  Defendant argued that (1) the father of the victims made statements based on hearsay, and (2) that defendant was beginning to show dementia at the time of the trial and was therefore not competent.  The State argued that (1) the context of the trial was such that the hearsay would have no impact on the verdict of any conviction, and (2) that the trial court correctly determined that there was no meaningful difference between state and federal standards for fitness to proceed.  "[The Court] review[s] only to determine if the record and all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision, supports the court's findings." See generally Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487, 443 P2d 621 (1968) (stating general standard)."  The Court held that the hearsay was harmless and did not materially change the jury's assessment of the victims' credibility and that the trial court used the correct standard when ruling on defendant's competence.  Affirmed.