State v. Smith

If a detective’s testimony is determined to be scientific evidence, the evidence requires a foundation to show its scientific validity. State v. Plueard, 296 Or App 580, 439 P3d 556, adh’d to as modified on recons, 297 Or App 592, 443 P3d 1195 (2019), and State v. Evensen, 298 Or App 294, 315, 447 P3d 23 (2019).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for Luring a Minor, Online Sexual Corruption of a Child in the First Degree, and Attempted Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court committed plain error by not sua sponte striking a detective’s testimony that the Defendant engaged in “grooming” during the exchange of text messages. Defendant argued the testimony was plainly scientific evidence that lacked necessary foundation for its scientific validity. If a detective’s testimony is determined to be scientific evidence, the evidence requires a foundation to show its scientific validity. State v. Plueard, 296 Or App 580, 439 P3d 556, adh’d to as modified on recons, 297 Or App 592, 443 P3d 1195 (2019), and State v. Evensen, 298 Or App 294, 315, 447 P3d 23 (2019). The Court rejected the plain-error argument because it is not reasonably disputable that the grooming testimony in this case was scientific evidence that required additional formation, and therefore, affirmed the trial court decision.