- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 12-07-2022
- Case #: A173283
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Tookey, P.J.; & Kamins, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Copeland engaged in a heated discussion with a private security guard, who was wearing a body camera, and ultimately shot him. At trial, he claimed he acted in self-defense. Copeland challenged his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting the victim’s body camera footage of the preceding discussion because he was recorded without notice in violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c). The State maintained that the recording was properly admitted under ORS 165.540(5)(a)'s exception because the conversations showed Copeland’s state of mind at the time of the shooting as well as his claim of self-defense. ORS 165.540(1)(c) does not apply to “[a] person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life[.]” ORS 165.540(5)(a). The body camera footage recorded the conversations that occurred leading up to the shooting. The statute's language did not limit when the person must initiate the recording of a felony endangering human life to trigger the exception, simply that the conversation occurred during the felony. Therefore, the trial court properly admitted the recording of the conversations. Affirmed.