State v. Zielinski

“[E]vidence is relevant so long as it increases or decreases, even slightly, the probability of the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” State v. Barone, 329 Or 210, 238, 986 P.2d 5 (1999).

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction for murder with a firearm for killing his wife. Defendant challenged the state’s cross-examination of his expert witness, a doctor, on the details of the crimes for which the expert had been retained in the past for other defendants. Defendant argued that merely because the expert had testified on behalf of veterans that committed heinous crimes was not enough to show bias without connection between the violent crime and the accuracy of the diagnosis. The state argued that any error was harmless given the timing of Defendant’s objections. “[E]vidence is relevant so long as it increases or decreases, even slightly, the probability of the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” State v. Barone, 329 Or 210, 238, 986 P.2d 5 (1999). The Court found the trial court erred when it allowed this cross examination and the State failed to lay sufficient foundation to show that the proffered testimony was relevant to the doctor’s credibility. Reversed and remanded.