State v. Martin

If cross examination does not increase the reliability of a statement admitted pursuant to a firmly rooted hearsay exception, then, by definition, allowing confrontation would not provide defendant a meaningful opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence for purposes of due process. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484.

Defendant appealed a judgement holding that he violated the conditions of his probation. On appeal, he assigned error to the trial court’s admission and consideration of out-of-court statements of the victim, who was not present at the hearing. On appeal, Defendant argued that his Due Process rights were violated because he was not afforded the opportunity to confront the witness in court. In response, the State argued that the victim’s statements would be admissible at trial as excited utterances under OEC 803(2). If cross examination does not increase the reliability of a statement admitted pursuant to a firmly rooted hearsay exception, then, by definition, allowing confrontation would not provide defendant a meaningful opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence for purposes of due process. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 484. Because the excited utterance exception is firmly rooted it would not serve the interests of Due Process to subject the victim’s statements to confrontation. Affirmed.