State v. Pierce

Under OEC 611, a trial court may exercise discretion to “reasonably control the presentation of evidence” but that discretion is not fundamentally fair if the court “effectively prevent[s] a party from presenting his or her case.”

Petitioner appealed convictions for attempted assault of a public safety officer, harassment, and resisting arrest. Petitioner argued that the trial court erred when they prevented Petitioner from retaking the stand to testify about the underlying incident. Petitioner asserted that the trial court abused its discretion and violated Petitioner’s “constitutional and statutory rights to testify in her own defense and present evidence favorable to that defense.” State v. Pierce, 307 Or App 429, 432 (2020). In response, the State argued that the trial court acted within its discretion to control the mode and order of presentation of evidence. Under OEC 611, a trial court may exercise discretion to “reasonably control the presentation of evidence” but that discretion is not fundamentally fair if the court “effectively prevent[s] a party from presenting his or her case.” Id. at 433. The Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing Petitioner to “reasonably complete presentation of her evidence” due to defense counsel’s oversight regarding testimony about the second incident. Id. Reversed and remanded; remanded for sentencing; otherwise affirmed.