Durocher and Durocher

An expert witness’ testimony may be excluded when the witness’s evaluation was not conducted in compliance with the trial court’s order on the subject, even if the testimony is otherwise admissible.

“Father appeal[ed] a supplemental judgment modifying custody and parenting time.” Father assigned error to the trial court’s ruling, excluding “the testimony of a custody and parenting time evaluator.” On appeal, Father argued that “the evaluator’s testimony was relevant under OEC 401, not unduly prejudicial under OEC 403, and appropriate opinion testimony under OEC 702.” An expert witness’ testimony may be excluded when the witness’s evaluation was not conducted in compliance with the trial court’s order on the subject, even if the testimony is otherwise admissible. The Court found that the trial court did not exclude the evaluator’s testimony on the grounds of OEC 401, 403, or 702, but rather “because [F]ather did not comply with the stipulated order regarding the evaluation process.” The Court noted that trial courts have significant discretion in ensuring orders are enforced and that excluding the evaluator’s testimony was an appropriate sanction for Father’s noncompliance. Affirmed.