State v. Walker

ORS 162.285(1)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of witness tampering if the person “knowingly induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony.” Read in context, “unlawfully” modifies the phrase “withhold any testimony,” indicating that the legislature intended to exempt behavior such as advising a witness to exert a lawful privilege. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551 (2009).

Defendant contested his convictions for witness tampering, arguing that the trial court wrongly denied his motion for acquittal. He claimed the evidence did not support a finding that he induced a witness to unlawfully withhold testimony under ORS 162.285(1)(a). ORS 162.285(1)(a) provides that a person commits the crime of witness tampering if the person “knowingly  induces or attempts to induce a witness or a person the person believes may be called as a witness to offer false testimony or unlawfully withhold any testimony.” Read in context, “unlawfully” modifies the phrase “withhold any testimony,” indicating that the legislature intended to exempt behavior such as advising a witness to exert a lawful privilege. State v. Bailey, 346 Or 551 (2009). The Court found that ORS 162.285(1)(a) applies to all witnesses, not just those subpoenaed or believed to be subpoenaed. The Court reasoned that evidence showed that the defendant tried to persuade a witness to ignore her legal duty to testify by calling her from jail and saying, "There better not be any testimony against me." Additionally, Defendant acknowledged that the State planned to call the witness. The Court held that the trial court did not err and affirmed the conviction.