State v. Forker

A trial court has broad discretion and as long as a court's decision falls within the range of permissible options available to it in the exercise of "broad discretion," the decision will be upheld. State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586, 615 (2005). "Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach a witness regarding a 'collateral matter.'" State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 573 (2005). "A matter is collateral if it is not something that the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove as part of its case." Id.

Defendant appealed a conviction for nine counts of child sex abuse in the second degree ORS 163.686. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that a previous judgment ordering the destruction of evidence was bargained for as part of his plea deal and that the State's failure to destroy this evidence violated this order. The State argued that none of Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated because the plea bargain, as explained to Defendant, stipulated no promises regarding the computers. Therefore, during the search, Defendant had no possessory or privacy interest in the computers.The Court reasoned that because the record does not reflect that this order was actually bargained for as part of his plea deal, Defendant's theory did not provide a basis for reversal.

In his second through sixth assignments of error, Defendant argued that the trial court's admission into evidence items seized from his home in 2003 constituted an abuse of discretion under OEC 403, given their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The State argued that this particular evidence was necessary to corroborate the victim's story in showing that Defendant had a sexual interest in boys. A trial court has broad discretion and as long as a court's decision falls within the range of permissible options available to it in the exercise of "broad discretion," the decision will be upheld. State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586, 615 (2005). The Court reviewed the balancing test performed by the trial court for its determination to admit the evidence under OEC 403 for abuse of discretion. The Court determined that a proper balancing test was performed by the trial court; therefore, allowing pornographic materials of minors to be submitted as evidence was not an abuse of discretion.

In his final assignment of error, Defendant challenged the trial court's exclusion of Facebook postings, which Defendant intended to submit for purposes of impeachment in victim's testimony regarding his emotional state. "Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach a witness regarding a 'collateral matter.'" State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 573 (2005). "A matter is collateral if it is not something that the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove as part of its case." Id. The Court explained that the victim's emotional state in 2017 was collateral and therefore the Facebook posts were inadmissible. 

Affirmed.