State v. Eggleston
Decision Date | 04 October 1977 |
Citation | 569 P.2d 1088,31 Or.App. 9 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. James Randolph EGGLESTON, whose true name is James Randall Eggleston, Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Cannon, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Donald L. Paillette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and THORNTON and LEE, JJ.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether in a prosecution for rape, sodomy and sexual abuse, ORS 163.475 prevents the state from introducing evidence of prior sexual acts between the defendant and a prosecutrix.
Upon trial by jury, defendant was convicted of two counts of statutory rape, two counts of sodomy and one count of sexual abuse. The two prosecutrices involved were both under the age of 12 at the time the incidents occurred. At trial, defendant, relying on ORS 163.475, moved the trial court to exclude from evidence all reference to prior sexual acts which had occurred between defendant and either prosecutrix. The trial court refused defendant's motion and the state subsequently introduced testimony from both prosecutrices concerning prior sexual acts between themselves and the defendant. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce evidence of his prior sexual acts.
ORS 163.475 provides:
Prior to the enactment of ORS 163.475 in 1975, Oregon recognized at least two special evidentiary rules designed to protect defendants in sexual offense cases: (1) the defendant could offer testimony concerning the general reputation in the community of the prosecutrix for chastity; and (2) the defendant could offer testimony concerning prior sexual conduct between the victim and the defendant. State v. Ogden, 39 Or. 195, 201, 210, 65 P. 449 (1901).
ORS 163.475 modifies these common law rules. It was enacted in response to criticism of the defense use, at rape trials, of a prosecutrix's sexual history. 1 The Subcommittee on Rape Legislation of the Oregon House Committee on Judiciary stated the purpose of 1975 House Bill 2241, codified as ORS 163.475, as
" * * * legislation * * which would limit inquiries into the past sexual history and reputation for chastity of complaining witnesses in trials for the crime of rape and sodomy." (Emphasis supplied.) Minutes, House Committee on Judiciary, Appendix A, p. 1, March 27, 1975.
The clear thrust of the statute, as indicated by its legislative history, is to protect a prosecutrix from unnecessary disclosure of her sexual history.
Separate and distinct from the rules recited above is the one which permits evidence of a defendant's prior criminal acts other than those...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brennen v. City of Eugene
... ... The trial court allowed the defendants' demurrer on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under general [285 Or. 405] principles of tort law plaintiff ... ...
-
State v. Blake
...was enacted in 1975 to protect victims of sexual offenses from unnecessary disclosure of their sexual history. State v. Eggleston, 31 Or.App. 9, 12-13, 569 P.2d 1088 (1978). The statute was amended to its present form in 1977. Or. Laws 1977, ch. 822, § 1. As amended, ORS 163.475 creates a r......
-
State v. Zybach
...State v. Risen, 192 Or. 557, 565, 235 P.2d 764 (1951); State v. Pace, 187 Or. 498, 507, 212 P.2d 755 (1949); State v. Eggleston, 31 Or.App. 9, 13, 569 P.2d 1088 (1977), rev. den. 281 Or. 99 (1978); and Barzee v. Cupp, 29 Or.App. 705, 707, 564 P.2d 1366 (1977). The state also contends that i......
-
State v. Hisey
...or propensity for illicit sexual relations with the victim. State v. Pace, 187 Or. 498, 212 P.2d 755 (1949); State v. Eggleston, 31 Or.App. 9, 569 P.2d 1088 (1977), rev. den. The state argues that, because prior acts of violence are admissible in assault cases to show the defendant's violen......