State v. Orvis

“To that end, "inquiring into the prospective jurors' potential interest or bias in a case is a legitimate way of selecting fair-minded individuals to serve on the jury." That means that jury selection necessarily "entails an inherent risk that the panel of prospective jurors will be exposed to information revealed by individual prospective jurors who are excused from the panel for cause." State v. Evans, 344 Ore. 358 (2008).

The defendant appealed his conviction for several sex offenses, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a mistrial. He contended that comments made during jury selection vouching for a child witness's credibility undermined his presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial. “To that end, "inquiring into the prospective jurors' potential interest or bias in a case is a legitimate way of selecting fair-minded individuals to serve on the jury." That means that jury selection necessarily "entails an inherent risk that the panel of prospective jurors will be exposed to information revealed by individual prospective jurors who are excused from the panel for cause." State v. Evans, 344 Ore. 358 (2008). The Court found that the trial court did not err in denying the mistrial motion, even though jurors stated that children generally tell the truth. The Court reasoned that such responses are expected during jury selection, serving to identify any biases prospective jurors might have regarding the credibility of child witnesses solely based on their age. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the jury selection process was appropriate and did not compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial.