Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JIMMY RAY STRINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2011-04-06
Citations: 242 Or. App. 70
Docket Number: 08121877C; A143575
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JIMMY RAY STRINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 242
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
Submitted February 4,
reversed and remanded April 6, 2011
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JIMMY RAY STRINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Malheur County Circuit Court
08121877C; A143575
263 P3d 1016
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Ryan T. O’Connor, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Matthew J. Lysne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting an expert's diagnosis that the victim was sexually abused. The state concedes that the trial court erred in admitting the expert's diagnosis over defendant's objection, because the diagnosis was based purely on the victim's credibility and therefore amounted to impermissible vouching. State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346, 361-62, 234 P3d 117 (2010); State v. Bainbridge, 238 Or App 56, 59, 241 P3d 1186 (2010). We agree with the state's concession. Accordingly, we reverse defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Defendant also argues that the court erred in instructing the jury. Given our disposition, we need not reach those assignments of error.