State v. Camirand

"Oregon's constitutional test for affirmance despite error consists of a single inquiry: Is there little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict?" State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).

Defendant appealed a conviction for coercion and robbery in the third degree.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court's (1) decision to allow the prosecutor to argue facts not introduced into evidence, and (2) decision to refuse to give the "witness-false-in-part" jury instruction.   Defendant argued that the prosecutor was not permitted to tell the jury that it could see the blood stains on the gloves because that was an impermissible insinuation about DNA evidence not in the record, and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that a witness consciously testified falsely.  The State argued that the prosecutor's improper reference "did not materially prejudice Defendant."  "Oregon's constitutional test for affirmance despite error consists of a single inquiry: Is there little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict?" State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).  The Court held that the trial court did not err because the prosecutor's improper closing did not impact the "jury's determination as to whether the substance on the gloves was, in fact, blood," and that the lack of a "witness-false-in-part" instruction did not affect the verdict.  Affirmed.