Court Opinion

ID: 9542994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:40:59.842244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:24.444019
License: Public Domain

LINDE, J.,
dissenting.
I do not object to the principle that a party generally should make an offer of proof as a basis for appealing a trial court’s ruling limiting cross-examination, but to apply the principle so as to sustain the present conviction leaves this defendant in an unusual predicament.
I shall not set out the details in this dissenting opinion, but there seems to be little doubt that the trial court improperly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of a prosecution witness contrary to OEC 611(2). Defense counsel did not attempt to place on record what the questions and answers would have been if the intended cross-examination had been allowed. The court now holds that this failure precluded defendant’s appeal on that issue.
Ordinarily, if a defendant’s appointed counsel commits a significant procedural mistake that materially prejudices her client’s defense, the defendant can expect relief in post-conviction proceedings on grounds of inadequate representation by counsel. ORS 138.530. A good argument could be made that this issue should be open for examination on a defendant’s direct appeal so as to save a separate proceeding in the circuit court if no new record is needed, but in any event, the law provides that remedy.
In the present case, however, this court for the first time announces a requirement of an offer of proof when a trial court excludes questions on cross-examination, and it expressly overrules its prior contrary decisions. It would be ironic if the state, having won affirmance of the conviction on the ground that defendant failed to preserve the error assigned on appeal, thereafter were to argue that defendant was not denied the adequate assistance of counsel because a competent lawyer had no reason to know that an offer of proof was needed. Defense counsel may, of course, have made other mistakes entitling defendant to post-conviction relief, but there should be no need to pursue that question.
I believe that the majority might well express its view *131on the proper procedure, but it should not insist on that procedure as a reason not to correct the error in this defendant’s trial. I therefore dissent.