State v. Beaman

• Decision Date: 07 November 2007
• Docket Number: C033023CR; A125644.
• Citation: 171 P.3d 402,216 Or. App. 181
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven Allan BEAMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

171 P.3d 402

216 Or. App. 181

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Steven Allan BEAMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

C033023CR; A125644.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted on Record and Briefs April 6, 2007.

Decided November 7, 2007.

Patrick M. Ebbett and Chilton, Ebbett & Rohr, LLC, filed the opening brief for appellant. Steven A. Beaman filed the supplemental brief pro se.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and ROSENBLUM, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After a trial to the court, defendant was convicted of numerous crimes stemming from a series of burglaries. On appeal, he argues that the trial court violated his federal Confrontation Clause rights by admitting evidence of statements made by an accomplice who did not testify.¹ The state concedes that the trial court erred, and we accept that concession. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). The state argues, however, that the error was harmless because other evidence adduced by the state overwhelmingly supports defendant's convictions and because the trial court did not rely on the erroneously admitted evidence. We affirm.

Under the federal constitution, a conviction may be affirmed in spite of a trial court error if the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kayfes, 213 Or.App. 543, 556, 162 P.3d 308 (2007). To determine whether the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we consider the entire record, including the importance of the improperly admitted testimony to the state's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the improper testimony on material points, and the overall strength of the state's case. Id.

The improperly admitted evidence consisted of testimony by two police officers about statements made by Sam Hamby, who had been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the burglaries. According to the officers, Hamby told them that he and defendant had committed the burglaries along with two other men, Barnes and Liddicoat; that either defendant or Barnes drove the group to the burglaries; that defendant normally wore gloves when committing burglaries and stated that he did so to avoid leaving fingerprints; and that defendant gave stolen checks to his girlfriend, Lawson, to cash.

Three other accomplices—Lawson, Barnes, and a woman named...