Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Garcia-Rocio

Court of Appeals of Oregon

September 13, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CRESENCIO GARCIA-ROCIO, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted April 26, 2016

         Washington County Circuit Court C122303CR, C131573CR, A156848 Rick Knapp, Judge.

         Kenneth A. Kreuscher argued the cause and fled the brief for appellant.

          Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.

          Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Duncan, Judge pro tempore. [*] DUNCAN, J. pro tempore.

          [287 Or. 746] Defendant appeals judgments in two consolidated cases- Washington County Circuit Court Case Numbers C122303CR and C131573CR- in which he was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against two victims. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting out-of-court statements made by a detective to defendant during an interview because, according to defendant, the statements constituted improper comments on the credibility of witnesses. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial after the admission of the statements and by failing to give a curative instruction regarding the statements. Defendant finally challenges the length of the post-prison supervision terms imposed on his convictions in Case Number C131573, and the state concedes that the post-prison supervision terms are too long. Held: The trial court did not err in admitting the detective's statements, or in denying defendant's related motion for a mistrial and request for a curative instruction, because the statements were not admitted for the truth of the credibility opinions they contained. However, the trial court did err by imposing a sentence that exceeded the statutorily permitted duration.

          [287 Or. 747] DUNCAN, J. pro tempore

         Defendant appeals judgments in two consolidated cases-Washington County Circuit Court Case Numbers C122303CR and C131573CR-in which he was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against two victims.[1] Defendant raises six assignments of error. As explained below, we reject all but defendant's fourth assignment of error, which pertains to Case Number C131573CR. In that assignment, he challenges the length of the post-prison supervision terms imposed on two counts of unlawful sexual penetration in the first degree. The state concedes that the post-prison supervision terms are too long. We agree. Accordingly, we remand both cases for resentencing, because they were consolidated for trial, and we otherwise affirm.

         Defendant's first three assignments of error concern the admission of out-of-court statements made by a detective to defendant during an interview about the victims' allegations. During the interview, defendant denied the allegations and, in response, the detective repeatedly asserted that defendant was lying and the victims were telling the truth.[2] Ultimately, defendant made inculpatory statements.

         At trial, the state sought to introduce a recording of the interview. Defendant objected to the admission of the detective's statements regarding the credibility of defendant and the victims, asserting that the statements were hearsay and improper comments on the credibility of witnesses. See State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427, 438, 657 P.2d 1215 (1983) [287 Or. 748] (a witness "may not give an opinion on whether [the witness] believes [another] witness is telling the truth"); see also State v. Keller, 315 Or. 273, 285, 844 P.2d 195 (1993) (the prohibition against vouching applies "whether the witness is testifying about the credibility of the other witness in relation to the latter's testimony at trial or *** in relation to statements made by the latter on some other occasion"). The state responded that the statements were "not being offered for [their] truth." Instead, they were being offered "to show [defendant's] reaction to being confronted with a particular statement." The trial court agreed with the state, and ruled that the statements did not constitute impermissible comments on the credibility of witnesses, stating:

"Okay. Well, let me start off by saying this was a police interview. And even though police interviews are done in different-with different techniques, some nice guy, some bad guy, this is I believe an attempt by the Defense to sanitize the complete interview. And all the objections are overruled.
"It's all coming in. I do not find that it's hearsay. I do not find that it's vouching. I do not find that, like the last one we talked about, that it necessarily implies what was said or not said on the interview."

         Thereafter, the state introduced the recording, including the detective's statements. In response, defendant moved for a mistrial and, in the alternative, requested that the jury be instructed to disregard the statements.

         After the presentation of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury, at the state's request, on its use of the detective's statements. Specifically, the trial court told the jury, "Statements that were made by [the detective] to the Defendant * * * during the video-recorded interview are not to be considered for their truth. Additionally, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.