Court Opinion

ID: 9797585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:24:49.414979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:18.046877
License: Public Domain

WOLLHEIM, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the lead opinion’s analysis and conclusion regarding defendant’s second assignment of error concerning the trial court’s error in failing to instruct the jury that at least 10 of its members had to agree on the particular facts that constituted first-degree sexual abuse (the Boots-type instruction). See 210 Or App at 496-503. Nonetheless, I dissent because I agree with Chief Judge Brewer’s analysis regarding defendant’s first assignment of error concerning the admission of Lane’s testimony recounting what Perez told Lane that the victim said during the December 9 interview. See 210 Or App at 528-29 (Brewer, C. J., dissenting). However, unlike Chief Judge Brewer, and because I agree with the lead opinion’s conclusion regarding the Boots-type instruction, I would reach the issue raised by the first assignment of error. The trial court erred in admitting Lane’s testimony because the requirements of OEC 803(28) were not *531met. Accordingly, I would reverse defendant’s conviction and remand the case for a new trial.
I respectfully dissent.