State v. Payne

When the trial court errs, the reviewing court is required to affirm the judgment of the trial court if, “there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).

Defendant appealed a judgment conviction for third-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's decision to not include a "witness-false-in-part" jury instruction. On appeal, Defendant argued that because the victim gave testimony at trial that varied from the initial report she made to police, the conflicting statements rose "above . . . inconsistency.” In response, the State argued that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not including the "witness-false-in-part" jury instruction, and even if it did, the error was harmless. When the trial court errs, the reviewing court is required to affirm the judgment of the trial court if, “there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003). The Court held that the Defendant openly challenged the victim’s credibility, specifically her conflicting testimony, during his closing arguments and therefore even if the trial court erred by not including uniform "witness-false-in-part" jury instruction, the error was harmless.

Affirmed.