Court Opinion

ID: 9582606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:29:19.995838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:02.072435
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, J.,
concurring.
I join in the disposition of this case. I write separately to note a matter concerning our present case law on preservation of error that I hope to see reconsidered by this court when it becomes pertinent.
The lead opinion is faithful to the procedure that this court spelled out in State v. McClure, 298 Or 336, 692 P2d 579 (1984). In that case, the question was whether a defendant, who desired to take the stand but was concerned about the potential impact on his testimony of impeachment by prior convictions, could obtain a pretrial ruling as to which of his prior convictions would be admissible for impeachment purposes. That question really involved two issues: (1) was the matter an appropriate one for pretrial consideration; and, (2) even if it was, does a defendant preserve for appellate review any pretrial ruling in this regard without first taking the stand and actually suffering the impeachment? In State v. McClure, supra, this court answered both of those questions in the affirmative. I should like to see this court take a further look at the answer to the second question, and wish to note my concern now.
In State v. McClure, supra, the defendant was charged with rape. He had a prior conviction for rape. Before trial, he moved the court for an order excluding the use of his prior conviction for impeachment purposes, arguing that the prejudicial effect of the use of such evidence would outweigh any probative value the evidence might have. Former OEC *303609(1).1 After the trial court ruled that the prior conviction would be admissible for impeachment purposes, the defendant indicated that he would not be taking the stand because of that ruling. Id. at 339. The defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. State v. McClure, 67 Or App 335, 677 P2d 765 (1984).
On review, this court made two important rulings. First, it ruled that the defendant was entitled to obtain a pretrial ruling on the admissibility against him of the prior crimes impeachment evidence. State v. McClure, supra, 298 Or at 338-39.1 have no quarrel with this rule. Counsel has a legitimate need to know the kind of cross-examination that his or her client may face if the client takes the stand and such a pretrial ruling does not create any advantage for either side.
This court also ruled, however, that the defendant did not have to take the stand and suffer impeachment in order to be able to preserve for appellate review the trial court’s pretrial ruling on the admissibility of the impeachment evidence. So long as the defendant made an offer of proof as to what the substance of his testimony would be and stated that, were it not for the pretrial ruling, he would have taken the stand and testified in his own defense, he could raise the issue on appeal. Id. at 341-43.
Because the present case reaches the correct result without having to reconsider the rationale of McClure as to the second holding, I need not attempt here to re-examine the McClure court’s rationale. The defendant did not make an offer of proof as to what the substance of his testimony would be. It is sufficient for the moment to note that the McClure opinion gave a tactical advantage to one party in that it permits a defendant, without risking anything, to have an “anchor to windward” in his or her case merely by saying that he or she would testify, were it not for the trial court’s abstract (at that point) ruling. As noted in the lead opinion, 315 Or at 299, harmless error analysis becomes impossible when a defendant is not required to experience impeachment *304in order to complain about it.2 It is my hope that, in a future case in which a defendant does make an offer of proof adequate under McClure, but does not testify, this court will be willing to re-examine that portion of McClure.
I concur.
Peterson and Graber, JJ., join in this opinion.

 As the lead opinion notes, the balancing between probative value and prejudicial effect contemplated by former OEC 609(1) has been eliminated from the present version of the rule. 315 Or at 294 n 1; State v. King, 307 Or 332, 337-38, 768 P2d 391 (1989).

 As noted in the lead opinion, 315Orat301n9,a different approach appears in the analysis of the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States in Luce v. United States, 469 US 38, 105 S Ct 460, 83 L Ed 2d 443 (1984) (construing FRE 609a, the federal analog of former OEC 609(1), and concluding that a party cannot complain about an abstract pretrial ruling under the rule, but instead must take the stand and be impeached).