State v. Roden

In analyzing evidence, the court needs to consider "the importance of the evidence to either party's theory of the case, noting evidence relating to a central issue - as opposed to a tangential one - will likely have a greater effect on the verdict." State v Basua, 280 Or App 339, 345, 380 P3d 1196 (2016).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for 11 offenses related to the death of his girlfriend's daughter and injuries to his girlfriend's sons.  Defendant assigned error to (1) admission of expert testimony and (2) improper denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his cellular phone.  On appeal, Defendant argued (1) that the expert testimony failed to meet the foundational requirements for scientific evidence and undermined a central theory in his case, and (2) that the cell phone warrant lacked requisite particularity.  In response, the State argued that even though (1) the trial court erred in admitting the evidence, it was a harmless error.  In analyzing evidence, the court needs to consider "the importance of the evidence to either party's theory of the case, noting evidence relating to a central issue - as opposed to a tangential one - will likely have a greater effect on the verdict." State v. Basua, 280 Or App 339, 345, 380 P3d 1196 (2016). The Court concluded that (1) the bite mark testimony was harmless with respect to Defendant's assault and criminal mistreatment counts because other circumstantial evidence was used, however, the bite mark testimony was not harmless with respect to the charges for murder and manslaughter because it undercut Defendant's theory that the child's death was caused by sepsis. Additionally, the Court held (2) that the trial court did not err in suppressing the evidence from the cell phone search. 

Convictions on Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.