Case Title: State v. Mains

Citation: 295 Or. 640, 669 P.2d 1112

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1983-09-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
669 P.2d 1112 (1983)
295 Or. 640
STATE of Oregon, Respondent On Review,
v.
Dennis Lee MAINS, Whose True Name Is Dennis Lee Main, Petitioner On Review.
TC No. 74-0191; CA A24630; SC 29361.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In banc.[*]
Argued and Submitted June 7, 1983.
Decided September 27, 1983.
*1113 *1114 Stephen F. Peifer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., and Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Michael E. Swaim, Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition and brief for petitioner on review.
JONES, Justice.
Defendant was convicted of murder after a jury trial in 1974 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. He obtained post-conviction relief in April, 1982, because of the inadequate assistance of appellate counsel in failing to raise certain issues. The post-conviction court granted defendant a "delayed appeal" on the issues not raised in the initial appeal. See, Shipman v. Gladden, 253 Or. 192, 453 P.2d 921 (1969). The propriety of the delayed appeal is not before this court, because the state did not appeal from the post-conviction judgment.
Defendant argues three issues:
The Court of Appeals considered these three issues and correctly affirmed the trial court for the reasons which follow.
The record indicates that the victim of the murder was a 15-month-old child who died as a consequence of a brain injury inflicted by the defendant. The state charged the defendant with murder under ORS 163.115, claiming defendant "did unlawfully and intentionally cause the death [of the victim] by striking him with his hands." The defendant obtained two pretrial psychiatric examinations at public expense. He then gave notice of his intention to introduce evidence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, pursuant to ORS 163.135(2), and of his intention to introduce evidence of the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, ORS 161.295, pursuant to ORS 161.309(3).
The state responded by obtaining an order, ORS 161.315, requiring the defendant to submit to a third psychiatric examination to determine if defendant was not responsible for criminal conduct because of mental disease or defect under ORS 161.295, or partially responsible under ORS 163.115(1)(a). Defendant's attorney, pursuant to the terms of the court's order, was allowed to be present during the examination if desired. Compare, Shepard v. Bowe, 250 Or. 288, 442 P.2d 238 (1968).
The state psychiatrist testified that (1) he told the defendant that defendant's statements could be used in court; (2) the doctor's report might be unfavorable to the defendant; (3) the defendant acknowledged that he understood the statements could be used in court; (4) the defendant was not threatened; and (5) the defendant was offered no inducements to respond to questions.
The state psychiatrist gave expert opinion testimony that at the time of the crime defendant did not suffer from mental disease or defect or from an extreme emotional disturbance, was aware of his acts and was able to conform his conduct to the law at the time the child was killed. Medical testimony established that the victim had *1115 numerous bruises, a burn probably caused by a cigarette, four missing front teeth, and other injuries which were not consistent with defendant's explanations. The psychiatrist also testified that defendant admitted during the psychiatric examination that he had become angry with the baby and had thrown him against a chair, injuring the child's head. He acknowledged spanking the victim often and stated that he had struck the child severely on a number of prior occasions, causing various injuries.
The defendant urges this court to adopt the holding in State v. Corbin, 15 Or. App. 536, 516 P.2d 1314 (1973), rev. den. (1974), as a basis for suppression of the statements made to the psychiatrist which were admitted at trial. In Corbin, the Court of Appeals said:
However, in State v. Loyer, 55 Or. App. 854, 858, 640 P.2d 631 (1982), the Court of Appeals distinguished Corbin thusly:
The facts of this case are similar to those in Loyer. We take the Court of Appeals' analysis a step further.
The familiar Miranda warnings are federal law, devised by the United States Supreme Court to protect an uncounseled person against involuntary self-incrimination when questioned while in custody "or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). They inform a person of the right not to answer questions and of the possible adverse use of his answers, and they also advise him of the right to counsel as a means to protect the right against self-incrimination. The details of the Miranda warnings are regarded as a judicial means to effectuate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against compelled self-incrimination. They were addressed to the states as a requirement of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Oregon Constitution similarly guarantees the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution. Or. Const., Art. I, § 12. Like the *1116 United States Supreme Court, this court is called upon from time to time to specify the procedure by which a guarantee is to be effectuated. Such specifications are not the same as interpretations of the guarantee itself, that is to say, they may not always and in all settings be the only means toward its effectuation but may be adapted or replaced from time to time by decisions of this court or by legislation in the light of experience or changing circumstances. In the absence of legislation, we believe that the following are the relevant information and warnings required in the setting of a psychiatric examination of a defendant conducted on behalf of the state to guarantee the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal prosecution under Article I, Section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.
When a defendant already is represented by counsel, obviously there is no need to explain that the defendant is entitled to counsel. If counsel is present at the examination, a court thereafter may presume that counsel has advised or will advise defendant as to his rights as the occasion may arise.[3] If counsel is not present at the examination, however, the defendant should be asked by the examiner whether he understands that counsel is entitled to be present and has consented to be examined in the absence of counsel. The defendant should further be informed that the examination is conducted on behalf of the prosecution and its results will be available for use against the defendant without the confidentiality of a doctor-patient relationship. See, State v. Corbin, supra. Because this defendant was represented by counsel and was advised that the results of the examination could be used adversely during his trial, we find no error in this case.
The trial court gave the following statutory instruction[4] over defendant's objection:
The defendant did not testify. In State v. Betts, 235 Or. 127, 135, 384 P.2d 198, 7 A.L.R.3d 1445 (1963), we said:
In State v. Greene, 36 Or. App. 281, 287, 583 P.2d 1171, rev. den. 284 Or. 235 (1978), the Court of Appeals found that such an instruction called attention to defendant's failure to testify and was grounds for reversal:
In the instant case, the jury was provided a "curative" instruction, which read:
The Court of Appeals found that all the instructions taken as a whole did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defendant:
This case gives us an opportunity to reiterate in plain and certain terms that the "weaker and less satisfactory evidence" instruction, ORS 10.095(7) and (8), should not be given in criminal cases whether or not the defendant takes the stand, except in those rare instances where because of an asserted defense the defendant has the burden of proof on an issue in the case.[5] For example, when a defendant elects to attempt to evade responsibility for his conduct because of mental disease or defect, ORS 161.295, the defendant has the burden of proof on that issue. Unless such a defense has been asserted by the defendant the "weaker and less satisfactory evidence" instruction may not be given. We believe such a rule will prevent further confusion about this instruction, provide appropriate guidance to trial courts and avoid unnecessary appeals.
In this case the defendant did assert the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, ORS 161.295, and viewing the instructions as a whole, there was no impermissible shifting of the burden of proof to defendant. Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, *1118 72 S. Ct. 1002, 96 L. Ed. 1302 (1952); State v. Burrow, 293 Or. 691, 653 P.2d 226 (1982); compare State v. Stockett, 278 Or. 637, 565 P.2d 739 (1977). It was not error to give the instruction under the circumstances of this case.
The defendant asserts that he was entitled to a mistrial because the trial judge undertook to "cross-exam, and even discredit," the expert witnesses called by the defense.
During the trial, the defense attorney cross-examined the state's psychologist, Dr. McMilan. Defense counsel, Mr. Bevans, was questioning on the distinction between child abuse and other forms of assault. The following dialogue took place in front of the jury:
No objection was made by anyone and no motion for mistrial was made. This was not plain error. See OEC 103(4).[6] In fact, it was not error at all. The ruling on the impeachment issue was correct, the comment to counsel about 51 definitions of murder was unnecessary and irrelevant, but harmless.
Later, in this 24-witness, 10-day trial, which consumed 1,000 pages of transcript, the veteran trial judge did slip. We cannot tell from the record the demeanor of the witness, of counsel or of the trial judge, but it appears that something triggered the judge to a point of exasperation. The court's questioning occurred during cross-examination by the prosecutor of a defense psychologist as follows:
Then the prosecution attempted to commence the examination once again for the purpose of having the psychologist explain what he meant; however, the court continued:
The trial judge next examined another defense psychologist who had been asked by the prosecution whether the result would have been different if the tests which were given to this defendant, and to other defendants who are awaiting murder trials, were given to persons who were not facing any such drastic situations:
After both sides had completed their examination of this defense witness, the court once again questioned the witness:
During recess, following a heated exchange between the court and defense counsel, defense counsel made an objection and motion:
The court then took a recess for lunch after which the following occurred, though still outside the presence of the jury:
It must be noted that defense counsel did not move for a mistrial because of the court's comments, but because of the court's failure to give a "curative" instruction at that time. This motion was made near the end of the trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the court gave the "curative" instruction previously requested:
Therefore, the defendant received, albeit belatedly, exactly what he requested. Nevertheless, we find it was plain error (currently covered under OEC 103(4), supra n. 6) for the seasoned trial judge to ask most of the quoted questions of the witnesses or make many of the quoted comments before the jury. The innocuous reference by the psychologist to "a thousand" things *1122 was obviously a figure of speech, which did not require examination by the court for the purpose of making any evidentiary ruling. The subsequent questions tended to not only embarrass the witness but to attack the credibility of the psychologist, especially the reference "[y]ou realize that you are under oath, don't you?"
This experienced trial judge simply had a bad day. His questions and comments did reflect his contempt for the witness's testimony and went beyond the bounds of proper judicial control of the trial. A judge who engages in an examination of a witness from the bench through this type of questioning and comment may well convey to the jury the judge's evaluation of the testimony.
An Oregon jury trial is an adversary proceeding based on the rationale that the opposing parties, motivated by self-interest, will assure a full and thorough presentation of the issues and relevant evidence. A basic requirement for a fair trial is that it be supervised by a fair and impartial judge. Fairness requires not only an absence of actual judicial bias in the trial of a case, but the absence of even the appearance of bias. In achieving this goal the trial judge must not take on the role of counsel, nor appear to align himself with any litigant. Of course, the judge has a higher duty to the law than to just sit back silently and tolerate improper conduct by lawyers or witnesses simply because no one objects.
Certainly, it is appropriate for a judge to run a "tight ship" to reduce verbal conflicts between counsel, to eliminate "speaking" objections, to expedite jury selection, to eliminate argument in opening statements, to control questioning of witnesses to prevent abuse or harassment, to restrict closing arguments to legal limits and, when necessary, to admonish counsel for unacceptable conduct. These are only a few examples of many approved actions a trial judge may undertake to conduct a proper, expeditious and just trial. The judge has explicit[7] and inherent power to control the trial of the case.
Obviously, the trial judge has a duty to be more than a passive referee if the adversary system breaks down to a level where the jury is not receiving a fair presentation of the facts. There is no doubt that a trial judge may question witnesses in criminal jury trials:
At common law the trial judge was an active participant in the trial, calling and questioning witnesses, analyzing evidence, and guiding the jury by commenting on the evidence and the credibility of witnesses. 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 784 (Chad rev 1979). Federal trial judges still have those same powers, but the jurors remain the ultimate fact-finders with any comment by the trial judge not to be interpreted as binding upon them. Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469-71, 53 S. Ct. 698, 699-70, 77 L. Ed. 1321 (1933).
In direct contrast to the federal system, this state is a strong "no comment" *1123 state. ORCP 59E;[8]see ORS 136.330(1). Although Oregon law does not allow a trial judge to "comment" on the evidence, judicial examination of witnesses is allowed to elicit the truth and clarify the facts for the jury. Indeed, there are occasions when the trial judge's failure to examine a witness may result in a grave injustice. Most questions of a witness by the court should be asked outside the presence of the jury, such as when necessary to properly rule on an offer of proof under OEC 103(2) or deciding preliminary questions on admissibility of evidence under OEC 104.
Difficult questions arise when, for example, an inexperienced prosecutor proves every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt but forgets to prove venue which is not subject to dispute. What is the responsibility of the trial judge? To speak or not to speak? To allow an obvious injustice to the state to occur or to act the role of a prosecutor? Conversely, what if an inexperienced defense lawyer fails to object to damaging hearsay testimony offered against the defendant? Is the judge to assume counsel's role and sua sponte exclude the evidence, or merely have faith that expensive post-conviction proceedings will bring some ultimate legal relief (usually after a sentence has been imposed)? These and many other problems regularly confront and perplex trial judges. The answers are not easy. With forethought and wisdom that great legal scholar, Roscoe Pound, commented critically that, unfortunately, "the inquiry is not, what do substantive law and justice require? Instead, the inquiry is have the rules of the game been carried out strictly?"[9] (Emphasis added.)
We do not perceive a trial to be a game, particularly trials of the intense severity as in this present case. The modern jury trial is one of the most important, demanding, exhausting, probing, and sometimes humbling and humiliating events that can be experienced by a person, be that person a party, a witness, a lawyer or a judge. It is not a sporting event and the judge is no mere referee. It is not a debate and the judge is not a moderator. The judge is not a litigant, nor a witness, and above all, not an advocate for either side. Therefore, we believe that judicial intervention before a jury should be kept within bounds, and the judicial questioning of witnesses or admonition of counsel in the presence of a jury should be a rare occurrence. Almost any question the judge may pose is fraught with the danger of giving the impression to the jury that the judge is an advocate for one of the parties. There is no question that juries are highly sensitive to the trial judge's words and even to non-verbal communications.[10]
Federal Evidence Rule 614 specifically provides for the right of a federal trial judge to call and interrogate witnesses:
However, the trial lawyers serving on the Oregon Evidence Revision Commission did not wish to memorialize this inherent power of all judges with an evidence rule.[11] These *1124 commission members, who had vast experience in federal and state trials, wanted no interference by the trial judge in the adversary process. They strongly believed that active participation by a trial judge in calling or questioning witnesses inevitably placed yet another opponent in the trial arena. Further, they contended that jurors are so profoundly influenced by the trial judge that the essence of a fair jury trial is threatened or defeated by judicial intervention. Therefore, the Oregon Evidence Revision Commission rejected FRE 614 for Oregon trials and the legislature followed its recommendation for deletion.
The legislature, in enacting ORCP 59E and ORS 136.330(1), and in implicitly adopting the sentiments of the promulgators of the new evidence code by not enacting FRE 614, echoed what we have already stated. Excessive intervention by a trial judge substantially diminishes the effectiveness of the adversary system and may deprive a litigant of his right to an impartially administered trial.
Some 70 years ago in the memorable case of Edwards v. Mt. Hood Const. Co., 64 Or. 308, 130 P. 49 (1913), Justice McBride wrote what is still applicable for today's trial judges. Judge Henry E. McGinn, the trial judge, engaged in the following colloquy with counsel during a heated circuit court trial:
Justice McBride, writing for this court wrote:
We believe Justice McBride's admonition is still a good basic rule of thumb for trial judges, although we have set forth many examples where judicial intervention is appropriate. See, State v. Bouse, 199 Or. 676, 705, 264 P.2d 800 (1953), overruled on other grounds State v. Fischer, 232 Or. 558, 565, 376 P.2d 418 (1962); Linde, Criminal Law  1959 Oregon Survey, 39 Or L Rev 161, 174 (1959).
Returning to this present case, except for the lapses quoted, the trial judge conducted the rest of this very difficult child homicide case with complete impartiality and judicial skill. Although we condemn the judge's questions and comments to the defense experts, the interrogation was on peripheral issues and constituted harmless error.
In State v. McLean, 255 Or. 464, 468 P.2d 521 (1970), we discussed the concept of *1126 harmless error under Article VII (Amended), Section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, which provides:
In McLean we were also guided by ORS 138.230, which provides:
Our decision in McLean was:
In State v. Van Hooser, 266 Or. 19, 511 P.2d 359 (1973), we retreated from any reliance on ORS 138.230 because in our view the language of the constitutional amendment is broader "and because of its constitutional status is controlling." Id. at 23, 511 P.2d 359. "The standard fixed in the amendment should be the sole criterion for determining whether the judgment should be affirmed." Id. at 23, 511 P.2d 359. In Van Hooser we found that the constitutional requirements for affirmance despite error are: "(1) that there was substantial and convincing evidence of guilt;[[13]] and (2) that the error committed was very unlikely to have changed the result of the trial."[14]Id. at 25-26, 511 P.2d 359.
In State v. Harley, 218 Or. 263, 267, 344 P.2d 773 (1959), we recognized that the authority or duty given to this court under Article VII (Amended), Section 3, "has been and should be exercised with utmost caution."[15]
Previously we said in State v. Wederski, 230 Or. 57, 62, 368 P.2d 393 (1962), that when a defendant claims that he has not received a fair trial, Article VII, Section 3, may require different considerations:
In State v. Folkes, 174 Or. 568, 619, 150 P.2d 17, cert. den. 323 U.S. 779, 65 S. Ct. 189, 89 L. Ed. 622 (1944), we stated:
Although we have indicated that we do not approve of the trial judge's comments and conduct in this trial, the question we must resolve is whether any "error committed was very unlikely to have changed the result of the trial." State v. Van Hooser, 266 Or. at 25-26, 511 P.2d 539; State v. Davis, 70 Or. 93, 140 P. 448 (1914).
The harmless error rule which may be applied when federal constitutional error has been committed, is not to be confused with either the federal harmless error rule that is applied in federal courts when nonconstitutional error occurs, see Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S. Ct. 1239, 90 L. Ed. 1557 (1946), or with our own harmless error rule applicable to errors of state law. Or. Const. Art. VII (Amended), § 3.
Our judgment must be based on our reading of the record and on what seems to us to have been the probable impact of the judge's conduct on the minds of the jurors.
In State v. Merlo, 92 Or. 678, 689, 173 P. 317 (1918), aff'd on rehearing 182 P. 153 (1919), we said:
We reaffirmed the same general concept in State v. Cahill, 208 Or. 538, 582, 293 P.2d 169, aff'd on rehearing 298 P.2d 214, cert. den. 352 U.S. 895, 77 S. Ct. 132, 1 L. Ed. 2d 87 (1956), overruled on other grounds State v. Hanna, 224 Or. 588, 592, 356 P.2d 1046 (1960). Although we decide the meaning of "harmless error" under Oregon's constitution, we observe that in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S. Ct. 824, 827, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967), the United States Supreme Court announced that even a federal constitutional violation could be harmless error:
Chapman continued a trend away from the practice of appellate courts in this country and in England of "reversing judgments for the most trivial errors." R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 13 (1970).
Applying the approach mandated by Article VII (Amended), Section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, we conclude "that the error committed was very unlikely to have changed the result of the trial," State v. Van Hooser, 266 Or. at 25, 511 P.2d 539,[16] and was therefore harmless.
The Court of Appeals is affirmed.
PETERSON, Chief Justice, concurring.
I concur in the result, but disassociate myself from this statement, which appears at page 1116 of the opinion:
This court never has held that a defendant is entitled to the presence of counsel at such an examination. The issue is not directly presented in this case, and I would *1128 not decide it. Compare State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or. 312, 333, 647 P.2d 904 (1982) (dissenting opinion).
CAMPBELL, Justice, concurring.
I concur in the result.
[*]  Justice Lent was Chief Justice when case was argued; Justice Peterson was Chief Justice when decision rendered.
[1]  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 694 (1966).
[2]  See, State v. Stein, 56 Or. App. 210, 215, 641 P.2d 1148, rev. den. 293 Or. 373, 648 P.2d 854 (1982):

"* * * [T]he interview satisfied the three-pronged requirement in Corbin: (1) the defendant understood the psychiatrist was employed by the state, (2) the ordinary doctor-patient confidentiality rule did not apply, and (3) statements made to the psychiatrist could be used against the defendant. Thus, although defendant was given a slightly truncated version of her full Miranda rights prior to the psychiatric interview, we conclude that, under all of the circumstances of this case, the function of the requirements set forth in Corbin have been met. Defendant was made fully aware of the adversary nature of the interview * * *."
[3]  It may nevertheless be a practical precaution at the time of the psychiatric examination to establish that counsel has done so, so as to minimize a possible later issue of effective assistance of counsel.
[4]  ORS 10.095(7) and (8) provides:

"(7) That evidence is to be estimated, not only by its own intrinsic weight, but also according to the evidence which it is in the power of one side to produce and of the other to contradict; and, herefore,
"(8) That if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it appears that stronger and more satisfactory was within the power of the party, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust."
[5]  Of course, it is proper to give the statutory instruction if specifically requested by the defense or to give a modified version such as:

"You are instructed that evidence is to be estimated not only by its own intrinsic weight, but also according to the evidence which it is in the power of the State to produce, and therefore if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered by the State when it appears that stronger and more satisfactory evidence was within the power of the State to produce, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust." Uniform Jury Instruction No. 205.01.
[6]  OEC 103(4) provides:

"Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court."
Professor Kirkpatrick comments:
"Rule 103(4) incorporates the plain error doctrine, which in exceptional circumstances allows evidentiary error to be considered as a basis for a new trial or reversal on appeal despite the absence of objection at trial [citations omitted.] * * *" Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence 18 (1982).
[7]  ORS 1.010(5) provides:

"Every court of justice has power:
* * * * * *
(5) To control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter appertaining thereto."
[8]  ORCP 59E provides:

"Comments on evidence. The judge shall not instruct with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon."
[9]  Pound, The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, 40 Am L Rev 729 (1906).
[10]  See 49 A.L.R.3d 1186 and 84 A.L.R. 1172.
[11]  concluding that Federal Rule 614 was consistent with current Oregon law relating to the calling and interrogation of witnesses by the court, the Advisory Committee was reluctant to provide the court with an expanded role in the examination or cross-examination of witnesses. By not adopting Federal Rule 614, the members of the Advisory Committee do not intend to deny or limit the inherent power of a trial court to call and interrogate witnesses." Proposed Oregon Evidence Code, Report of the Legislative Interim Committee on the Judiciary, 138 (December, 1980).
[12]  The decision did not dissuade the ribald Judge McGinn from candor about the merits of a case in front of the jury. Two years later, in Frederick & Nelson v. Bard, 74 Or. 457, 458-59, 145 P. 669 (1915), he said to a jury:

"`The Court: Gentlemen, that verdict cannot stand. I am not going to allow this verdict to stand; this man here wrote letters time and time again in which he admitted he owed these notes; now, he is a lawyer, and he knew perfectly well what he was doing, and if anybody thinks I am going to allow those people over there to be robbed in this manner, they will get fooled. This man lives in Portland here, and strong influences have been brought to bear here, and it don't make any difference; this verdict will not stand. This man owes that money, and every man on this jury knows it. Gentlemen, you will be discharged from further consideration of this case. There will be a new trial granted. It takes 13 men to rob anybody in this court, and I want that understood. That man owes that money, and he will pay it if I have anything to say about it."
[13]  In State v. Naylor, 291 Or. 191, 196-97 n. 3, 629 P.2d 1308 (1981), we noted:

"We did not explain what we met by `substantial and convincing evidence.' Ordinarily, when we use the term `substantial evidence,' we do not equate it with that quantum and quality of evidence necessary to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. When we use the adjective `convincing,' to modify the noun `evidence,' we normally couple it with another adjective, i.e., `clear and convincing.' We certainly regard `clear and convincing evidence' as being something less in quantum and quality than that necessary for conviction in a criminal case."
[14]  While in McLean we were of the opinion that these were a composite of the requirements of both the amendment and the statute, in Van Hooser we found that they are reasonable criteria to use in complying with the constitutional mandate.
[15]  We explained in State v. Naylor, supra n. 12:

"The result in State v. Harley, 218 Or. 263, 344 P.2d 773 (1959), was expressly approved in State v. McLean, 255 Or. 464, 468 P.2d 521 (1970), although a further rule followed in Harley was disapproved in McLean. The rule overruled was that the judgment must be reversed unless the record conclusively shows that the error was not prejudicial. By citing Harley in the text of this opinion, we do not mean to resurrect that rule." 291 Or. at 197 n. 4, 629 P.2d 1308 n. 4.
[16]  Compare, State v. Naylor, supra n. 12.