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. McNutt

Court of Appeals of Oregon

September 5, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CRAIG ALAN McNUTT, aka Craig A. McNutt, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted April 24, 2018.

          Jackson County Circuit Court 14CR30680; Timothy Barnack, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

          Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree aggravated theft. ORS 164.057. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's overruling of his objection, on hearsay grounds, to the alleged victim's testimony as to something a detective had told her during the investigation. In response, the state argues that the disputed testimony did not contain hearsay because the detective's statement was not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted. Held: Under the circumstances, the victim's recounting of the detective's statement was unlikely to have affected the jury's credibility assessment. Furthermore, the record does not suggest that the alleged hearsay statement-which came out during cross-examination by defense counsel and was not elicited by the state- was central to any aspect of the state's theory of the case. Accordingly, the admission of the evidence was harmless.

         Affirmed.

         [299 Or.App. 255] DEHOOG, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree aggravated theft. ORS 164.057, and a supplemental judgment imposing restitution. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's overruling of his objection, on hearsay grounds, to the alleged victim's testimony as to something a detective had told her during the investigation.[1] In response, the state argues that the disputed testimony did not contain hearsay because the detective's statement was not admitted for the truth of the matter it asserted. We, however, conclude that it is unnecessary to resolve whether that statement constituted improper hearsay, because any alleged error in admitting the statement was harmless. We therefore affirm.

         When we review a trial court's evidentiary ruling, we do so in light of the record that was before the court at the time of the ruling. State v. Brumbach, 273 Or.App. 552, 553, 359 P.3d 490 (2015), rev den, 359 Or. 525 (2016). However, when evaluating whether the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless, we consider all pertinent parts of the record. Id. at 553-54. We state the facts with those standards in mind.

         Defendant and the victim were in a romantic relationship, and, in November 2012, he moved into her home, where he lived for over a year. In her home, the victim kept a safe that defendant had given her. Defendant knew the combination to the safe, and he may also have had a key to unlock it. The victim kept large sums of cash in the safe. When she and defendant first met, she had accumulated about $180, 000 in cash; she later placed that amount in the safe. The victim organized her cash in small bank envelopes, with each envelope containing $10, 000 in new $100 bills. The victim kept a record of the number of envelopes that she had on a post-it note inside the safe. Defendant also accessed the safe, using it to store spare keys and paperwork.

         [299 Or.App. 256] In March 2014, the couple separated and defendant moved out of the victim's home. Later that year, after the victim had nearly depleted the savings from her safe, she discovered that one of the remaining envelopes contained only $322-22 one-dollar bills surrounded by three $100 bills- rather than $10, 000 in $100 bills as she had anticipated. Also, based on her post-it note, the victim believed that an entire additional envelope was missing. In total, therefore, the victim determined that approximately $19, 700 in cash was missing from her safe.

         After the victim reported the missing money to the police, they arranged two pretext phone calls between the victim and defendant. The state later played the recordings of those two calls at trial. In those calls, defendant explained why he had taken the money, what he had done with the money, and that he had intended to return the money to the victim. As a result of that evidence, defendant ultimately was charged with first-degree aggravated theft, alleging that he had unlawfully and knowingly committed theft of property valued at $10, 000 or more. ORS 164.057.[2]

         Before trial, defendant served the victim with a subpoena for her complete tax records. The victim moved to quash the subpoena. At a hearing on that motion, the victim's attorney contended that defendant was misusing the legal process to harass the victim. According to defendant, however, the documents were necessary to his defense because the victim had given some of her bank and tax records to the police to help substantiate how much money was missing from the safe, and the subpoenaed documents could potentially refute that evidence. In response, the [299 Or.App. 257] state indicated that it did not intend to use the records it had received from the victim to establish how much money defendant had stolen; instead, it would rely primarily on the victim's testimony to establish that amount. The trial court agreed with the victim that defendant appeared to have ulterior motives ...


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.