From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hill

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 12, 1992
841 P.2d 2 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

J-1044; CA A67799

Argued and submitted July 15, 1992

Affirmed November 12, 1992

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coos County.

Richard L. Barron, Judge.

Gary Babcock, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Irene B. Taylor, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.

Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Child appeals a juvenile court order of commitment asserting jurisdiction over him for sexual abuse of his two half-sisters. He contends that hearsay declarations of the elder of the sisters, who was held by the trial judge to be unavailable to testify, admitted under OEC 803(18a)(b) should have been excluded, either because that statute unconstitutionally deprives him of his confrontation rights or because its corroboration requirements were not met. We affirm.

The 1989 version of the OEC is applicable to this appeal. OEC 803(18a) has since been amended. Or Laws 1991, ch 391, § 1.

OEC 803(18a)(b) is constitutional. State v. Renly, 111 Or. App. 453, 458, 827 P.2d 1345 (1992).

Corroboration is not a constitutional requirement, Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S Ct 3139, 111 L Ed 2d 638 (1990), but is required to "ensure that an accused not be convicted solely on the basis of hearsay." State v. Renly, supra, 111 Or App at 463. Corroborating evidence can include "a confession, an [eyewitness] account, physical evidence and evidence showing that the accused had access to the purported victim." 111 Or App at 463. The evidence showed that child had access to the victims and that he admitted that "possibly his finger slipped" while helping the elder sister to wipe after going to the bathroom. That was sufficient corroboration.

Child's admission is not hearsay, OEC 801(4)(b)(A), so its use as corroborating evidence does not offend the purpose of "ensuring that an accused not be convicted solely on the basis of hearsay."

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hill

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 12, 1992
841 P.2d 2 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hill

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Richard Paul Hill, a Child. STATE ex rel JUVENILE…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 12, 1992

Citations

841 P.2d 2 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
841 P.2d 2

Citing Cases

State v. Reed

This requirement "ensure[s] that an accused [will] not be convicted solely on the basis of hearsay." Id.; see…

State v. Booth

That was sufficient corroboration. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hill, 116 Or. App. 379, 841 P.2d 2 (1992).…