State v. Poitra

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. McCool

    188 P.3d 453 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    We need not decide whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the disputed evidence, because we conclude that the error, if any, was harmless under both the state and federal constitutions. See State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 212, 136 P3d 87, rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006) (declining to address whether trial court committed evidentiary error where any error was harmless under state and federal constitutions). Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, an error is harmless if there is little likelihood that it affected the verdict. State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 576, 113 P3d 423, cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005); State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003). If the disputed testimony is merely cumulative of other evidence that already established the same fact, then the error is harmless.

  2. State v. Poitra

    142 P.3d 73 (Or. 2006)

    August 15, 2006. Appeal from the 206 Or App 207. Petitions for Review Denied.

  3. State v. Sewell

    257 Or. App. 462 (Or. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 19 times
    Explaining that we "generally defer to the trial court’s decision regarding whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice," unless the court "exercises its discretion to an end not justified by, and clearly against, evidence and reason"

    Thus, we concluded that we could not say that there was little likelihood that the admission of the disputed testimony affected the verdict. See State v. Poitra, 206 Or.App. 207, 212, 136 P.3d 87,rev. den.,341 Or. 245, 142 P.3d 73 (2006) (“Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, an error is harmless if there is little likelihood that it affected the verdict.”). At the hearing on remand, the state urged the trial court to adhere to its original ruling and allow the evidence; defendant asserted that the harmless error discussion in Sewell I essentially required the court to exclude the evidence under OEC 403 because we determined that the evidence was marginally relevant and potentially prejudicial.

  4. State v. Hobbs

    218 Or. App. 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 7 times

    When the disputed evidence is merely cumulative of other evidence establishing the same point, the error is harmless. State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 212, 136 P3d 87, rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006). Here, the statements that are the subject of the portion of defendant's assignment of error that is preserved were merely cumulative of similar evidence in the record.

  5. State v. Steen

    215 Or. App. 635 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    The record in this case is silent with respect to the question of G's unavailability. We cannot conclude that G refused to testify, as did the declarants in State v. Page, 197 Or App 72, 74, 104 P3d 616 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006), and State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 213, 136 P3d 87, rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006). Nor can we conclude that she was incapable of testifying due to youth, as were the declarants in State v. Foreman, 212 Or App 109, 114, 157 P3d 228 (2007), State v. Pitt (A120428), 209 Or App 270, 274, 147 P3d 940 (2006), adh'd to on recons, 212 Or App 523, 159 P3d 329 (2007), and State v. Stalder, 205 Or App 126, 129, 133 P3d 920, rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006).

  6. State v. Holcomb

    213 Or. App. 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 25 times
    In Holcomb, in analyzing the defendant's statement, "I have an attorney an[d] shit," we concluded that statement was, "at best" an equivocal invocation.

    Moreover, defendant's erroneously admitted statement did not add any additional information to or provide a different perspective from that of other evidence of defendant's conduct in shooting Dean Pruitt. See State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 212, 136 P3d 87, rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006) ("If the disputed testimony is merely cumulative of other evidence that already established the same fact, then the error is harmless."). Davey Phillips and Oscar Phillips are Belanger's grandsons; they live across the street from Belanger.

  7. State v. Szoke

    212 Or. App. 491 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    That contention was unpreserved; not surprisingly, the only objection raised below was a non-constitutional objection that that testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Even assuming, without deciding, that the admission of those portions of the officers' accounts was error apparent on the face of the record, ORAP 5.45(1), we decline to exercise our discretion to review and remedy such error, Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 823 P2d 956 (1991), for the reasons stated in State v. Cox, 337 Or 477, 500, 98 P3d 1103 (2004), cert den, 546 US 830 (2005), and State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 212-16, 136 P3d 87, rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006). Affirmed.

  8. State v. Pitt

    209 Or. App. 270 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 24 times
    Holding videotaped testimony of two children was inadmissible as testimonial

    In some of those cases, we have concluded that the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative and its omission thus was unlikely to have affected the jury's verdict. In those cases, we have concluded that the error was not grave and have declined to review it. See, e.g., State v. Poitra, 206 Or App 207, 215-16, 136 P3d 872, rev den, 341 Or 245 (2006) (declining plain error review of unpreserved Crawford objection where the state had ample evidence of the defendant's guilt over and above the disputed evidence); State v. Stalder, 205 Or App 126, 133 P3d 920, rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (same); Galloway, 202 Or App at 619 (same). In other cases, we have found the erroneously admitted evidence to be an essential or critical part of the state's case.