State v. Huerta

Trial Court’s Exclusion of Lay Testimony and Denial of Witness Info Request Affirmed

Defendant appealed her conviction for mail theft under ORS 164.162, alleging three assignments of error: (1) the trial court improperly excluded lay witness testimony about her mental health; (2) the court erred in denying her request for victim and witness contact information; and (3) the court committed plain error in failing sua sponte to strike burglary evidence after the state dismissed that charge mid-trial.

First, the court held that the trial court did not err in excluding the lay witness testimony because defendant failed to establish a connection between the witnesses’ observations and the mental state required for the mail theft charge. Mere assertions about mental health deterioration did not meet the OEC 701 requirement that lay opinion be helpful to establishing a fact at issue. Second, the court concluded that defendant, appearing pro se, did not meet the statutory requirement under ORS 135.815(4)(b)(B)(ii) to show that her need for contact information could not be met by other means. Third, the court rejected the plain error claim regarding the unstruck burglary evidence. The evidence was properly admitted when offered, and no authority required sua sponte exclusion after the charge was dismissed. Thus, the court AFFIRMED.