State v. Eggleston

Decision Date04 October 1977
Citation569 P.2d 1088,31 Or.App. 9
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. James Randolph EGGLESTON, whose true name is James Randall Eggleston, Appellant.
CourtOregon 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.

SCHWAB, Chief Judge.

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:

"(1) For the purposes of this section, 'complainant' means the alleged victim of the crime for which the defendant is prosecuted.

"(2) In a prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.425, evidence of the sexual character or reputation for chastity of the complainant is not admissible for any purpose, and reference to the sexual character or reputation for chastity of the complainant shall not be made in the presence of the jury.

"(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, in a prosecution under ORS 163.355 to 163.425, evidence of previous sexual conduct of a complainant shall not be admitted and reference to that conduct shall not be made in the presence of the jury.

"(4) If a defendant wishes to elicit evidence or testimony concerning previous sexual conduct between himself and the complainant for the purpose of negating the existence of forcible compulsion in the alleged offense, the defendant must, during the trial, but prior to the offering of such evidence or making reference thereto, request a hearing to be held to determine whether the evidence will be admitted. The court shall conduct a hearing out of the presence of the jury and shall take such testimony and evidence as it deems necessary. If the court finds that the evidence or testimony sought by the defendant regarding the previous sexual conduct of complainant with the defendant is relevant for the purpose offered and is not otherwise inadmissible, the court shall issue an order stating what evidence may be introduced by the defendant, and the nature of the questions permitted at trial.

"(5) Nothing in this section shall limit the right of either the state or the defendant to impeach the credibility of a witness by proof of a prior conviction of a crime."

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
5 cases
  • Brennen v. City of Eugene
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1979
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1981
    ...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
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • October 5, 1988
    ...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
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • December 30, 1981
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT