State v. Cuffy

To impeach by contradiction, it is necessary to state a precise fact statement to which the rebuttal evidence contradicts. State v. Hayes, 117 Or App 202, 205-06 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 528 (1993). The “state [is] entitled to introduce contradic­tory testimony [that] relate[s] to the circumstances of the crime.” State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 572 cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005).

Defendant appealed a conviction for ten counts of various crimes, assigning error to the trial court’s admission of evidence regarding his gang involvement. Defendant argued that his statements were not specific nor sweeping enough for the court to admit impeachment evidence related to his gang involvement and the evidence was highly prejudicial. In response, the State argued the evidence of Defendant’s statements were specific and sweeping enough to impeach his testimony as to why he tampered with witness testimony and, in the alternative, that any error was harmless. To impeach by contradiction, it is necessary to state a precise fact statement to which the rebuttal evidence contradicts. State v. Hayes, 117 Or App 202, 205-06 (1992), rev den, 316 Or 528 (1993). The “state [is] entitled to introduce contradic­tory testimony [that] relate[s] to the circumstances of the crime.” State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 572 cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005). The Court found that evidence of Defendant’s gang involvement was improperly admitted because Defendant's statements were neither contradictory, specific, nor sweeping enough to be rebutted, and not relevant to impeach his statements as to why he tampered with witness testimony. Reversed and remanded.