State v. Knight, 343 Or. 469

173 P.3d 1210 (2007) · Supreme Court of Oregon · December 6, 2007 · No. SC S54423; CA A122440; CC 03023540C

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon held that admitting a defendant's recorded, profane comments disparaging his trial attorney was error under Oregon Evidence Code Rule 403. The court concluded that the statements had limited impeachment value but created an extremely high risk of unfair prejudice and compromised the defendant's constitutional right to counsel, warranting reversal of the Court of Appeals and trial court judgment.

Court
Supreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the Court
Gillette, J.; Linder, J.; Kistler, J.; Walters, J.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Decision date
December 6, 2007
Docket number
SC S54423; CA A122440; CC 03023540C
Procedural posture
Defendant sought review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming his criminal convictions and the trial court's admission of a recording containing derogatory statements about his appointed attorney. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed review.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion for the trial court's OEC 403 balancing and evidentiary ruling; preservation was reviewed as a preliminary legal issue.
Precedential value
Published, precedential Oregon Supreme Court opinion; dissent filed.
Parties
Roy Norman Knight v. State of Oregon
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

evidencecriminal procedureimpeachmentright to counselsixth amendment

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidenceconstitutional law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether defendant's objection to the derogatory portions of the recording was preserved.
  2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under OEC 403 by admitting the recorded derogatory statements about defendant's attorney.
  3. Whether admission of the recording violated defendant's constitutional rights to counsel and due process.

Holdings

  1. Defendant preserved his objection because defense counsel consistently objected to the derogatory comments about trial counsel, even though he did not identify each statement with particularity.
  2. The trial court abused its discretion by admitting the derogatory statements about defendant's attorney because their modest probative value was substantially outweighed by their extremely high danger of unfair prejudice.
  3. The court did not reach defendant's alternative constitutional claims because the statutory OEC 403 error was independently prejudicial and required reversal.

Key quotations

We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and, therefore, erred in failing to exclude defendant's derogatory statements about his attorney under OEC 403. (343 Or. 484-85)
After the jury heard that defendant was unimpressed with his lawyer's ability, his cause was sunk. (343 Or. 483)
Because that error was prejudicial and grounds for reversal, we need not consider defendant's alternative constitutional claims. (343 Or. 485)

Factual background

Knight was charged with sexually abusing the 13-year-old daughter of his girlfriend during a camping trip. He testified that he was a caring and devoted parent and denied touching the alleged victim. The prosecution then introduced a jailhouse telephone recording in which Knight threatened to give his children to state custody if his mother did not obtain a different attorney, repeatedly disparaging his appointed counsel. The jury convicted Knight of both charges.

Procedural history

Knight was convicted in circuit court of first-degree sexual abuse and second-degree unlawful sexual penetration. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the recording's probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and that admission did not warrant a mistrial. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court judgment and remanded for a new trial.

Remand instructions

The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court were reversed, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for a new trial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…