State v. Davis, 351 Or. 35

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oregon reviews evidentiary rulings in Terry Dean Davis's murder and manslaughter prosecution arising from the death of his 15-month-old daughter. The court considers the admissibility and relevance of evidence concerning the child's prior injuries and a witness's observations and statements about the child's condition before death, as well as harmless error. The excerpt states that the court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not err in excluding the nurse's statement that she told the victim's mother that the victim reminded her of the nurse's daughter. Even assuming the mother understood the statement as suggesting a possible brain injury, her belief or fear did not make it more probable that the victim actually had suffered the fatal injury on June 25 rather than on June 29 or 30.
2. The trial court erred by excluding the nurse's lay opinion that the victim looked like the nurse's daughter when the daughter was suffering from pressure on the brain or dehydration. The opinion was rationally based on the nurse's personal perceptions and experience and was helpful to the jury under OEC 701; certainty was not required.
3. The trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim's prior physical abuse and injuries when the evidence was offered to explain the bases of defense experts' opinions that the fatal injuries occurred several days before the victim's death. The evidence was not offered to prove a person's character or conduct in conformity with character and was admissible under OEC 703 and OEC 705 for the permissible purpose of explaining expert opinions.
4. The exclusion of the nurse's lay opinion and the prior-injury evidence was not harmless because there was more than a little likelihood that each error affected the jury's verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the nurse's statement that the victim reminded her of the nurse's brain-injured daughter was relevant and admissible when offered to show the mother's knowledge or the truth of an earlier brain injury.
2. Whether the nurse's opinion that the victim resembled her daughter when suffering from brain pressure or dehydration was admissible lay opinion under OEC 701.
3. Whether evidence of the victim's prior physical abuse and injuries was relevant and admissible to explain the bases of defense experts' opinions that the fatal injuries occurred before June 29.
4. Whether the exclusion of the lay opinion and prior-injury evidence was harmless under Oregon's constitutional and statutory harmless-error standards.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded