Dept. of Human Services v. R. A. B.

"Because . . . it is OEC 403 and OEC 702 that make a diagnosis of sex abuse inadmissible when it is not based on physical evidence, it is logical to conclude that it also is those rules of evidence that make testimony about the criteria used in such a diagnosis inadmissible."  State v. Black, 364 Or 579, 592-94, 437 P3d 1121 (2019).

This case was remanded from the Oregon Supreme Court in light of State v. Black, 364 Or 579, 437 P3d 1121 (2019). The original appeals court analysis of Black held that offers of proof were inadmissible commentary. The Supreme Court declined to label all the testimony as vouching and noted that testimony, as to interview methods, could potentially be admissible, but required evaluation under the Oregon Evidence Code (OEC). "Because . . . it is OEC 403 and OEC 702 that make a diagnosis of sex abuse inadmissible when it is not based on physical evidence, it is logical to conclude that it also is those rules of evidence that make testimony about the criteria used in such a diagnosis inadmissible." 364 Or 579, 592-94, 437 P3d 1121 (2019). The Court held that Mother could advance some arguments supporting testimony, providing a juvenile court enough testimony to potentially conclude that the OEC does not prohibit admission. Reversed and remanded.