State v. Plueard

“[E]vidence about sexual grooming of children ‘was “scientific” evidence under OEC 702’ that could not be admitted ‘without first requiring the state to establish its scientific validity.’” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 422 P3d 217 (2018).

Defendant appealed from a conviction of first-degree sexual abuse and using a child in display of sexually explicit conduct. Defendant assigned error to the trial courts ruling that evidence relating to Defendant’s “grooming” of the victim was admissible. On remand from the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence because the State failed to establish its "scientific validity." In response, the State argued that even if the testimony about "grooming" was an error, it was harmless. “[E]vidence about sexual grooming of children ‘was “scientific” evidence under OEC 702’ that could not be admitted ‘without first requiring the state to establish its scientific validity.’” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 422 P3d 217 (2018). The Court held that the "grooming" evidence was improperly admitted because at most the evidence showed Defendant only interacted with the victim one other time. Additionally, the Court held that both experts failed to testify about whether Defendant's conduct with the victim constituted as "grooming."

Reversed.