Court Opinion

ID: 9578594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:46:42.430247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:50.979728
License: Public Domain

HOWELL, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in all aspects of Justice Tongue’s opinion except that I do not approve of the references *392in the opinion to error being "deemed” or "presumed” to be prejudicial. As I stated in my brief dissent in Elam v. Soares, 282 Or 93, 577 P2d 1336 (1978), our function as an appellate court should be to decide whether the error was prejudicial, without any presumption as to whether it was prejudicial or harmless. In the instant case, to instruct the jury that the evidence must be clear and convincing rather than a preponderance was error requiring a reversal, and any references to evidence being "deemed” or "presumed” prejudicial is unnecessary.