State v. Pyle

Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides a defendant with a right to “have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” and unless an otherwise lawful subpoena is quashed or modified by the trial court, it must be given effect.

During his criminal trial, Defendant sought to recall a witness to question him about his statements to a police officer following that officer’s testimony. This witness had been excused by both parties the previous day and did not appear after being served a subpoena. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s decisions refusing to enforce that subpoena and denying his motion for a mistrial after the witness failed to appear. Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides a defendant with a right to “have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” and unless an otherwise lawful subpoena is quashed or modified by the trial court, it must be given effect. Defendant was within his right to recall a witness who had been lawfully served. Because the record does not suggest that the trial court understood itself to have quashed the subpoena, it must be enforced. While the trial court was within its discretion in deciding not to impose contempt sanctions on the witness, its denial of any remedy for Defendant was an abuse of discretion. This error was not harmless because the testimony sought would have been integral to Defendant’s defense. Reversed and remanded.