State v. Strasser

Excluding evidence is harmless if the finder of fact “would have regarded the evidence as duplicative or unhelpful to its deliberations.” State v. Blaylock, 267 Or App 455, 456 n 1, 341 P3d 758 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015) (quoting State v. Perkins, 221 Or App 136, 143, 188 P3d 482 (2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and ellipses omitted)).

Defendant appealed his conviction of contempt due to violation of a restraining order that was consolidated with his appeal of a continuation of his probation converting bench probation to formal probation. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred in excluding testimony at the hearing for contempt because it was admissible to impeach the witness since it was a prior inconsistent statement. In response, the State argued the Defendant’s argument was unpreserved and the error was harmless. The Court concluded that any error, if there was an error, in excluding the witness’s testimony was harmless error. Excluding evidence is harmless if the finder of fact “would have regarded the evidence as duplicative or unhelpful to its deliberations.” State v. Blaylock, 267 Or App 455, 456 n 1, 341 P3d 758 (2014), rev den, 357 Or 299 (2015) (quoting State v. Perkins, 221 Or App 136, 143, 188 P3d 482 (2008) (internal quotation marks, citations, and ellipses omitted)). This testimony was cumulative and excluding it was harmless error. Affirmed.