State v. Houston

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” and information about the purpose and interest of an organization associated with a testifying interviewer is relevant to the jury’s evaluation. OEC 401; State v. Valle, 255 Or App 505, 809 (2013).

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s daughter, E. After a CARES Northwest employee testified about their interview with E, Defendant presented testimony that CARES is an adjunct of law enforcement with a prosecution focus, and this testimony was excluded. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s decision excluding the testimony that CARES is “an integrated part of [the] process towards prosecution,”, arguing that he was entitled to make an initial showing of any bias. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” and information about the purpose and interest of an organization associated with a testifying interviewer is relevant to the jury’s evaluation. OEC 401; State v. Valle, 255 Or App 505, 809 (2013). The trial court erred by excluding the testimony because information about CARES’s bias or interest was relevant to the jury’s evaluation of the truth of E’s interview statements. The CARES interview was the prosecution’s strongest evidence, and Defendant was unable to fully challenge that evidence as a result of this error; therefore, it was not harmless and warrants reversal. Reversed and remanded.