State v. McNutt

If there is “little likelihood that an error affected . . . [a] verdict,” then it was a “harmless error” and any conviction in question because of it must be affirmed. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003); OEC 103(1).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for first-degree aggravated theft under ORS 164.057. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s decision to overrule his hearsay objection, which was related to the victim's testimony about something a detective said to her. On appeal, Defendant argued the statement in question was inadmissible under the rule against hearsay and that it was unduly prejudicial in making him appear less credible and likable. In response, the State argued that any error in admitting the statement was harmless because the victim was permitted to talk about Defendant’s conduct towards her, which would have caused the same reaction as the alleged hearsay statement. If there is “little likelihood that an error affected . . . [a] verdict,” then it was a “harmless error” and any conviction in question because of it must be affirmed. State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003); OEC 103(1). The Court held that, based on the information the victim was allowed to testify about regarding Defendant’s conduct, the jury would have reasonably connected the possible re-arrest statement to that conduct. Therefore, admitting the statement was a harmless error because the jury most likely would have come to the same conclusions regardless of hearing the hearsay statement.

Affirmed.