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. Peterson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

May 2, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TRENTON COLE PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted March 23, 2018.

          Josephine County Circuit Court 15CR46131. Pat Wolke, Judge.

          Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

          Sharia Mayfield, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for eight counts of second-degree sexual abuse, one count of third-degree sexual abuse, four counts of third-degree rape, and one count of third-degree sodomy. On appeal, defendant raises fve assignments of error. In his first assignment, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to strike, sua sponte, "a police detective's expression of gratitude for the alleged victim's 'honesty.' " In his second through fifth assignments, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to merge a number of the jury's guilty verdicts for second-degree sex abuse and third-degree rape. Held: The trial court did not plainly err by failing to strike, sua sponte, the police detective's expression of gratitude for the victim's honesty because it was not "obvious" that the detective's out-of-court statement was offered only for the truth of the credibility opinion that it expressed. The trial court plainly erred when it entered separate convictions for each of the second-degree sexual abuse counts and each of the third-degree rape counts that were [291 Or.App. 574] based on the same conduct, and the Court of Appeals exercised its discretion to correct the error.

         Reversed and remanded for merger consistent with this opinion; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

         [291 Or.App. 575] TOOKEY, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for eight counts of second-degree sexual abuse (Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 14), one count of third-degree sexual abuse (Count 3), four counts of third-degree rape (Counts 5, 8, 10, and 12), and one count of third-degree sodomy (Count 7). On appeal, defendant raises five assignments of error. In his first assignment, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to strike, sua sponte, "a police detective's expression of gratitude for the alleged victim's 'honesty'" In his second through fifth assignments, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred by failing to merge a number of the jury's guilty verdicts. For the reasons that follow, we reject defendant's first assignment. We conclude, however, that defendant's merger arguments are well taken. We therefore reverse and remand for merger of the affected convictions, and remand the entire case for resentencing

         The facts are few and undisputed. Defendant, who was then 26 years old, met the victim, who was 14 years old. Over the course of several months, defendant engaged in a sexual relationship with the victim. Eventually, the victim's parents became aware of defendant's sexual relationship with their daughter, and they confronted defendant. After defendant acknowledged that he had been engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with the victim, the victim's parents contacted the police. At first, the victim refused to talk with the police or to cooperate in any way because she did not want defendant to get arrested, but approximately a year later she disclosed the details to Detective Harris.

         The victim was under a lot of "stress" and "very emotional" when Harris interviewed the victim at the Children's Advocacy Center. Approximately 70 minutes into that interview, the victim became "really upset" when Harris asked why it took the victim over a year to report the abuse, and the following colloquy ensued:

" [Victim]: I'm dealing with things I wish I didn't have to deal with.
"[Victim]: I tried to ignore it a lot.
[291 Or.App. 576] "[Victim]: But I've been thinking a lot lately and I'm looking at my friends and how they're being ...

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.