Opinion ID: 1132307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Defendant was convicted by a jury of and sentenced by the trial court for Escape in the Second Degree, Reckless Driving and Attempting to Elude a Police Officer. The charges stemmed from an encounter between defendant and a police officer, the details of which both defendant and the officer testified to at trial. The officer testified that he stopped defendant as a suspected drunken driver; when the officer told defendant he was under arrest, defendant drove away at high speed; defendant was subsequently apprehended in his driveway where the officer attempted to handcuff defendant; defendant struck the officer repeatedly with his fists, causing the officer to defend himself with his nightstick; defendant ran into his residence and the officer, accompanied by several recently arrived police officers, forcibly entered the residence, but was unable to find defendant. Defendant testified that he was stopped by the officer; while stopped, defendant's wife called him on his radio communication pager and asked that he come home immediately; defendant asked the officer to follow him home a few blocks away so that defendant could respond to his wife's page; upon arrival at his house, the officer unexpectedly attempted to handcuff him, threatened to mace him and then beat him with a nightstick; defendant escaped into his house, pursued by the officer, who banged on the door and threatened to break it down; defendant then hid outside the home from the officer for several hours. Defendant and the officer were the only two witnesses to the incident surrounding the charges of which defendant was convicted. Consequently, the credibility of the officer was a critical prosecutorial element of the trial. Defendant attempted to cross-examine the officer regarding the officer's knowledge of internal police department disciplinary measures available against an officer who uses excessive force at an arrest scene. The alleged purpose of the questioning was to show that the officer had a personal interest in the outcome of the case and that his version of the events might be slanted because of his desire to avoid departmental discipline. The trial judge disallowed the questioning because no complaint of excessive force had been filed against the officer and because the resulting evidence would leave the jury with an incorrect inference that defendant had filed such a complaint. The Court of Appeals held the exclusion of the testimony was an abuse of discretion and reversed and remanded for a new trial. State v. Hubbard, 61 Or. App. 350, 657 P.2d 707 (1983). In deciding whether the trial court ruling was correct, we first review how the proffered evidence developed on cross-examination. Defense counsel asked the officer in the presence of the jury: Q Now, if a Portland police officer acts unreasonably and uses too much force at an arrest scene, are there internal procedures regarding that question? A Yes. [1] Q And an officer who did something like that would have to do what  stand a board trial or  by the department? [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I'd have to object to this.      THE COURT: I sustain the objection. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: May I take that matter up? The following colloquy took place outside the presence of the jury: THE COURT:    The second question you asked was the question: `Whenever an officer uses excessive force'  you started asking that question, and it's perfectly proper, [defense counsel], if Mr. Hubbard  had he filed a complaint with the Police Department, you could ask him then and proceed with the inquiry, but just to make a broad statement about some officer being investigated and what is the procedure  [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: May I be heard? THE COURT: Certainly. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: One might always test, by use of a witness, particularly in a situation like this. An officer is presumed to have no bias; he's just a man out there. THE COURT:    Just proceed with what question you were going to ask him, and I'll make a ruling. Q (By [defense counsel]) Are you aware of internal police procedure regarding what happens when a police officer uses too much force out on the street against a citizen? THE COURT: Answer. THE WITNESS: Yes, I am. Q (By [defense counsel]) And if those charges are sustained against an officer, are you aware of what could happen to an officer? A Yes. Q What is that? A There are varying things that can happen. Internal Affairs can decide to turn the investigation over to the detectives who may want to do it like a criminal proceeding, because, if Internal Affairs interviews me knowing that what I say is going to be used against me in Court because  or any officer  because it would be coerced out of me or they could just send it to the Chief, and the Chief can decide on discipline, and the union can decide to appeal and it can go to arbitration. There's just all kinds of things that can happen. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you. [PROSECUTOR]: I would have one question on this offer of proof. Do you [police officer] know if Mr. Hubbard ever lodged an Internal Affairs complaint against you? THE WITNESS: I know that he has not, unless he's done it today   . [PROSECUTOR]: Thank you.