State v. Judd

“Except as provided in ORS 136.427, a confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed.” ORS 136.425(2); see also State v. Wenning, 282 Or App 21, 23, 386 P3d 1 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 852 (2017).

Defendant appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the Second Degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her motion to exclude her statements to her mental health counselor on the grounds of privilege. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) that the statements were uncorroborated confessions that Oregon’s corpus delicti rule required the court to exclude from evidence; and (2) that the statements were privileged under either OEC 504 (psychotherapist-patient privilege) or OEC 504-4 (regulated social worker-client privilege). “Except as provided in ORS 136.427, a confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed.” ORS 136.425(2); see also State v. Wenning, 282 Or App 21, 23, 386 P3d 1 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 852 (2017). The Court found that a social worker is not a “psychiatrist” or a “psychologist” for purposes of ORS 124.060, but ORS 124.060 abrogates the OEC 504 privilege only insofar as to allow for a report of elder abuse. Furthermore, because ORS 136.425(2) does not provide a basis for excluding evidence, the trial court was correct to deny Defendant’s motion. However, whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction in view of ORS 136.425(2), is an issue for the trial court to reconsider. Reversed and remanded.