Opinion ID: 1367785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Specified portions of videotape.

Text: Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain portions of the videotaped interview. The trial court sustained defendant's objections to many portions of the videotape and edited it accordingly. Defendant argues that 11 additional portions of the videotape were inadmissible. [5] We have considered all of defendant's arguments concerning the 11 additional portions of the videotape but are not persuaded by those arguments. Only two issues require discussion. First, the child demonstrated her father's sexual conduct toward her, using anatomically complete dolls. Defendant argues that the demonstration was inadmissible hearsay. The demonstration was a statement, because it was [n]onverbal conduct of a person,    intended as an assertion. OEC 801(1)(b). That statement was hearsay, because it was made out of court and was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. OEC 801(3). As was the videotaped interview as a whole, the demonstration was offered pursuant to OEC 803(4). The demonstration was an integral part of the process of diagnosis and treatment in this case and was admissible for the reasons discussed in relation to the videotape as a whole. Second, on the videotape the child stated that she told a teacher that her father had hit her with a belt and had given her bruises. Defendant argues that the child's recitation of her own prior statement was inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay can include a prior out-of-court statement of the witness who is testifying. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence 483 (2d ed 1989) (out-of-court statements, even by the witness who is now testifying, are hearsay if offered for their truth). See also Commentary to OEC 801(4)(a) in Kirkpatrick, supra at 487-88 (discussing reasons for treating certain prior statements by trial witness as hearsay). In this instance, the self-quoted statement was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and was, therefore, hearsay. OEC 801(3). Any error in admitting that statement was harmless, however, and does not require reversal of defendant's conviction, because there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. See OEC 103(1) (evidential error not presumed to be prejudicial; error is prejudicial if it affects a substantial right of the party affected). `Under Oregon law, a verdict against a criminal defendant may be affirmed notwithstanding trial error if the error did not affect a `substantial right' of the defendant. OEC 103(1). This court has interpreted this to mean that the verdict may be affirmed if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict. State v. Hansen, 304 Or 169, 180-81, 743 P2d 157 (1987); see also State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 220-22, 709 P2d 225 (1985)[, cert den 475 US 1141[, 106 S.Ct. 1793, 90 L.Ed.2d 339] (1986) ].' State v. Isom, 306 Or 587, 595-96, 761 P2d 524 (1988).  See also State v. Williams, 313 Or 19, 56, 828 P2d 1006 (1992) (Unis, J., dissenting) (explaining same); State v. Walton, 311 Or 223, 230-31, 809 P2d 81 (1991) (describing constitutional basis for Oregon doctrine and contrasting rule under federal constitution). State v. Phillips, 314 Or 460, 471, 840 P2d 666 (1992). We are persuaded that the child's statement that she told a teacher about being hit had no effect, because the child's extensive live testimony to the same effect (which we discuss below) was admissible. See State v. Pinnell, 311 Or. 98, 102-09, 806 P.2d 110 (1991) (improper references to other, uncharged misconduct during voir dire were harmless error, because trial testimony about same acts was admitted without objection).