State v. Davis

• Decision Date: 24 February 2022
• Docket Number: A172180
• Citation: 317 Or.App. 794,505 P.3d 1057
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David Kif DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

317 Or.App. 794

505 P.3d 1057

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.David Kif DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

A172180

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and submitted September 2, 2021.

February 24, 2022

Stacy M. Du Clos, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before James, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

KAMINS, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for criminal trespass in the second degree, ORS 164.245, and criminal mischief in the third degree, ORS 164.345. He assigns error to the trial court's decision to quash his subpoena duces tecum for the use-of-force policy for G4S, a private security company, and his subpoenas duces tecum for the mayor and other members of Portland City Council to appear as witnesses and bring identified documents with them. We conclude that the trial court erred when it quashed the subpoena for the G4S use-of-force policy, but that that error was harmless. Additionally, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it quashed the subpoenas for the mayor and the other members of city council. We therefore affirm.

In 2019, defendant attended a Portland City Council meeting and recorded the proceedings. There was a bright light on his camera and a G4S security officer approached defendant and asked him to turn his light off. Defendant refused and walked away from the G4S security officer, who followed. While this was happening, another member of the public started yelling about the security officer interacting with defendant. The mayor announced a recess, and G4S, in consultation with city employee Dorothy Elmore, gave the order to clear council chambers. Defendant refused to leave and was eventually pulled out of the room by security officers. During that interaction defendant received a cut to his hand, and he proceeded to smear his blood on the wall. He was arrested and charged with criminal trespass in the second degree ( ORS 164.245 ); criminal mischief in the second degree ( ORS 164.354 ); and criminal mischief in the third degree ( ORS 164.345 ).

Defendant issued six subpoenas duces tecum for his trial: one for G4S's use-of-force policy, and five for the mayor and the remaining members of city council to appear as witnesses and bring identified documents. The defense theory at trial was that defendant was engaged in protected constitutional activity and thus the order to exclude him was unlawful. Defendant argued that the policy could be used to impeach the G4S officers’ testimony regarding what happened and show that they were hostile to him personally. In support of his subpoenas for the mayor and city council, defendant contended that their testimony could bolster his theory that G4S and city council were biased against him and that the G4S security officer approached him not because of the light but because of the content of his speech. G4S and the City of Portland moved to quash those subpoenas, and the trial court granted the motions to quash, stating that the proposed relevance of the policy and testimony was too speculative. Defendant was found guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree and criminal mischief in the third degree. Defendant timely appealed, contending that the trial court's decision to quash his subpoenas duces tecum violated his statutory and constitutional rights to compulsory process.

We begin with the trial court's decision to quash defendant's subpoena for the use-of-force policy and address only the statutory right, as it is dispositive. We review whether a defendant's right to compulsory process has been violated for legal error. State v. Cartwright , 336 Or. 408, 419-20, 85 P.3d 305 (2004) (applying that standard for statutory arguments under ORS 136.567 and ORS 136.580 ).

A defendant's entitlement to issue subpoenas for documents and testimony is provided by ORS 136.567 and ORS 136.580.¹ There is no statutory provision that authorizes a motion to quash a subpoena in a criminal case. Cartwright , 336 Or. at 417, 85 P.3d 305. Accordingly, the ability to rule on motions to quash stems from a court's inherent authority, but that authority "cannot permit trial courts to violate a criminal defendant's broad right under the subpoena statutes to compel witnesses to attend his or her trial (and to bring along any books, papers or documents that the defendant has identified in the subpoena)." Id . (internal quotation marks omitted).

In addition to witness privacy concerns, two conceptual limitations bear on a witness's duty to accommodate a defendant's right to compel the production of evidence: relevance and privilege. State v. Bray , 281 Or. App. 584, 608, 612, 383 P.3d 883 (2016), aff'd , 363 Or. 226, 422 P.3d 250 (2018). "[W]hen a party subpoenas a witness to produce material for cross-examination at trial, ORS 136.580 requires a court to order the production of the material unless it is clear that the material has no potential use for that purpose." State v. Bray , 363 Or. 226, 247-48, 422 P.3d 250 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

Defendant argues that the trial court erred because the use-of-force policy had a potential use for impeachment purposes. At the motion to quash hearing, defendant argued that the policy itself was relevant to show bias if the security officers used force that was not consistent with the policy. The representative for G4S responded that the charges of criminal trespass and criminal mischief had nothing to do with the actions of G4S, and even if the policy was useful to show bias, that bias would not be relevant to the elements of those crimes.

"To be relevant, evidence introduced to impeach a witness for bias or interest need only have a mere tendency to show the bias or interest of the witness." State v. Hubbard , 297 Or. 789, 796, 688 P.2d 1311 (1984) (emphasis added). A court should afford a party "wide discretion in cross-examination to demonstrate such bias." State v. Rashad , 310 Or. App. 112, 113, 483 P.3d 1223 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, when evaluating the relevance of evidence meant to show bias, there must be more than mere speculation. See State v. Phillips , 245 Or. App. 38, 46, 261 P.3d 55 (2011), rev. den. , 351 Or. 545, 274 P.3d 184 (2012) (stating that "reasonable inferences are permissible but ‘speculation *** is not’ " (quoting State v. Harberts , 198 Or. App. 546, 561, 108 P.3d 1201 (2005), rev. den. , 341 Or. 80, 136 P.3d 1123 (2006) )) (ellipses in Phillips ).

The use-of-force policy was relevant to show the bias of G4S witnesses and generally undermine the credibility of their testimony at trial. See OEC 609-1 ("The credibility of a witness may be attacked by evidence that the witness engaged in conduct or made statements showing bias or interest."). It is undisputed that G4S used force to remove defendant from council chambers, force that caused a minor injury to his hand. Defendant intended to use the policy to cross-examine the multiple G4S personnel on the state's witness list. Because the policy might show that G4S's use of force was inconsistent with the policy, that policy had a "mere tendency" to demonstrate that G4S officers were biased against defendant and thus undermine their credibility. Hubbard , 297 Or. at 796, 688 P.2d 1311.² Given that the use-of-force policy had a nonspeculative potential use for impeachment during cross-examination of the witnesses from G4S, the trial court erred in quashing the subpoena.

The state argues that the trial court did not err because defendant's theory of relevance relied on a string of inferences which was too tenuous to support the potential use of the policy. However, for purposes of impeachment evidence, a trial court cannot "predict, with certainty, in advance of that witness's testimony, whether the subpoenaed material will in fact be relevant and admissible." Bray , 363 Or. at 251, 422 P.3d 250. "When a party uses a subpoena duces tecum to compel production of materials for cross-examination at trial, the court has control over those materials and will have an opportunity to make the more exacting determinations necessary to their admissibility." Id .

Having determined that the trial court erred when it quashed the subpoena for the use-of-force policy, we must determine whether that error was harmless; that is, whether there was little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict. State v. Hightower , 368 Or. 378, 386, 491 P.3d 769 (2021). In making that determination, we look at all the evidence in the record and "we consider the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence to a party's theory of the case." State v. Stewart , 270 Or. App. 333, 341, 347 P.3d 1060, rev. den. , 357 Or. 743, 361 P.3d 608 (2015) ; see State v. Mendoza-Sanchez , 291 Or. App. 299, 313, 419 P.3d 765 (2018) (when making a harmless error determination "we review all pertinent portions of the record"). For purposes of a general attack on witness credibility under OEC 609-1, an erroneous decision to exclude evidence relevant to bias is reversible "if it denies the jury an adequate opportunity to assess the credibility of a witness whose credibility is important to the outcome of the trial." Hubbard , 297 Or. at 800, 688 P.2d 1311. Thus, "a trial court's error is harmless if either: ‘(1) despite the exclusion, the [factfinder] nonetheless had an adequate opportunity to assess [the witness's] credibility; or (2) [the witness's] credibility was not important to the outcome of the trial.’ " State v. Jones , 274 Or. App. 723, 728, 362 P.3d 899 (2015) (quoting State v. Titus , 328 Or. 475, 482, 982 P.2d 1133 (1999) (brackets in Jones )).

The error in ...