Summary
This Oregon Court of Appeals opinion reviews a defendant’s conviction for multiple counts of sexual offenses against children. The defendant appealed on two grounds: alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and the trial court’s denial of a motion to continue based on allegedly untimely discovery. Applying plain error review to the unpreserved claims, the appellate court found that while some prosecutorial statements were improper, they were curable and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The court also upheld the denial of the continuance, noting the defendant had ample prior notice and opportunity to investigate the disputed records.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor’s closing‑argument statements constituted plain error warranting reversal
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to continue the trial
Holdings
- The court held that, although some prosecutorial statements were improper, they were curable and did not rise to the level of plain error; therefore the conviction stands.
- The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the defendant had notice of the ODHS report two years before trial and could have subpoenaed it, satisfying the requirement for a continuance.
Key quotations
“A prosecutorial comment—even if improper or impermissible—does not constitute plain error unless the comment was “so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard [it] would not have been sufficient[ ]” to ensure that the defendant received a fair trial.” (at 63)
“The prosecutor’s remarks about defense counsel … could have impermissibly “encourage[d] the jury to decide the case on an improper basis.”” (at 65)
Factual background
Putnam, a pastor, was accused of sexually abusing two children, one his daughter and one a church member. The abuse was reported after a victim disclosed it to a therapist. At trial the state presented testimony from the victims, Putnam’s former spouse, a law‑enforcement officer, photographs and medical records. Putnam did not testify and called his son and a stepsister of a victim as witnesses.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted Putnam on twelve counts of sexual offenses after a jury trial. Putnam raised two assignments of error on appeal: (1) alleged improper prosecutorial statements during closing argument, and (2) denial of a motion to continue the trial. The Court of Appeals reviewed the plain‑error claim and the abuse‑of‑discretion claim and affirmed the judgment.