State v. Clark
| Citation | 551 P.2d 1313,26 Or.App. 55 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. George Edmon CLARK, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 19 July 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
John K. Hoover, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Donald L. Paillette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FOLEY, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of oral sodomy on his 14-year-old stepaughter and received a 10-year sentence.
The stepdaughter testified that shortly after her mother's death in January 1974, defendant commenced having intercourse with her three or four times a week. Defendant remarried in March 1975 and the intercourse with the stepdaughter ceased. However, on June 20, 1975, after a quarrel, defendant and his wife separated. That night defendant took the stepdaughter and his eight-year-old son to a motel in Springfield where he allegedly committed the sodomy offense charged in the indictment.
At trial defendant sought to impeach the testimony of the stepdaughter by attempting to show a motive for recent fabrication of her complaint of sexual misconduct by defendant. The prosecution then offered evidence of prior consistent statements of the stepdaughter. Two young girls about the age of the stepdaughter testified that she had told one of them in March 1974 and the other in May 1974 about sexual acts allegedly committed against her by the defendant. Defendant's sole assignment of error is the admission of this evidence introduced to bolster the stepdaughter's credibility. We affirm.
Ordinarily a witness's out-of-court statements are not competent evidence to corroborate his in-court testimony. However, where the witness's credibility has been attacked on the ground that his testimony is a recent fabrication or that he has some motive for testifying falsely, evidence that he made consistent statements when the motive did not exist is admissible. State v. Drew, 8 Or.App. 471, 475, 494 P.2d 270, Sup.Ct. Review denied (1972). See McCormick, Evidence 105, § 49 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972).
In the case at bar defendant's cross-examination of the stepdaughter sought to show that she had a motive to fabricate her account of the alleged sodomy. Defendant's apparent theory was that the stepdaughter was upset because the defendant had remarried after the death of her mother and as a result the stepdaughter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Middleton
...she has some motive for testifying falsely, prior consistent statements are admissible. 3 We approve the statement in State v. Clark, 26 Or.App. 55, 57, 551 P.2d 1313, rev. den. does not assert the "res gestae" exception on appeal, so we do not consider it. "Ordinarily a witness's out-of-co......
-
State v. Middleton
...motive for testifying falsely, evidence that he made consistent statements when the motive did not exist is admissible." State v. Clark, 26 Or.App. 55, 57, 551 P.2d 1313, rev. den. See also State v. Drew, 8 Or.App. 471, 475, 494 P.2d 270, rev. den. (1972); McCormick, Evidence 102-107, § 49 ......
-
State v. Taylor
...hearsay evidence to establish that the direct testimony of a prosecution witness was not a "recent fabrication." See State v. Clark, 26 Or.App. 55, 57, 551 P.2d 1313, rev. den. (1976). After a prosecution witness, Owens, testified to having seen defendant with a rifle on the date of the the......
-
State v. Newberry
...with his testimony at trial." Cook v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 266 Or. 77, 88-89, 511 P.2d 375, 381 (1973). See also State v. Clark, 26 Or.App. 55, 551 P.2d 1313, Rev. den. Defendant, however, contends that a different rule should apply to prior consistent statements of a victim in a rape case......