State v. Galloway, 02FE0202.

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Citation123 P.3d 352,202 Or. App. 613
Docket NumberA121922.,02FE0202.
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Nathan Wayne GALLOWAY, Appellant.
Decision Date16 November 2005
123 P.3d 352
202 Or. App. 613
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
Nathan Wayne GALLOWAY, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted July 20, 2005.
Decided November 16, 2005.

Page 353

George W. Kelly, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant.

Kaye E. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before WOLLHEIM, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and DEITS, Judge pro tempore.


Defendant was convicted of 27 counts involving a variety of crimes stemming from his alleged participation in two fire-setting incidents.1 He assigns error to three of the

Page 354

trial court's rulings: one allowing into evidence the taped interviews of an accomplice who was unavailable to testify, one denying defendant's motion for a mistrial, and one sentencing defendant to an "upward departure" sentence based on findings of fact not made by a jury or admitted by him. For the reasons that follow, we affirm defendant's convictions and remand for resentencing.

Because our disposition of the first assignment of error requires us to evaluate the quantity and quality of the evidence against defendant, we recite the undisputed facts in some detail. We begin with some background facts regarding the preexisting relationship between defendant and one of the victims in this case, Brown.

On May 3, 2002, defendant was charged with two counts of third-degree theft. The information stating those charges was signed by Brown, Crook County's Chief Deputy District Attorney. Defendant pleaded guilty to those charges and was sentenced to jail time and community service work. On May 25, 2002, defendant was arrested again on several new charges, including fourth-degree assault and resisting arrest. Brown also signed and filed an information in that case. While in custody at the Crook County Jail on his second arrest, defendant made a series of "loud and boisterous statements, accusations, [and] threats" that were heard by the jail's deputies. Those statements included, "I'm going to kill those fucking cops," "[F]uck you and the government," and "Crook County Circuit Court, you make no fucking sense." On August 8, after a court appearance relating to the May 25 incident, defendant told his friends that the district attorney was prosecuting him for something that he did not do and that he was "going to fix it." Finally, early in the morning of August 14, defendant repeated that statement and suggested that he was going to "blow[] up a DA's house."

The fire on which all but one of the counts against defendant are based occurred in the basement of the Brown family home at approximately 3:30 a.m. on August 14, some two hours after the last statement described above. At that time, as described above, defendant knew who Brown was and had demonstrated animus toward him and his office.

At 3:30 that morning, Prineville police and firefighters responded to a 9-1-1 call by Brown reporting the fire. An investigation revealed that the cause was arson. After leaving the scene of the fire, a Prineville police officer observed defendant "hunched over [and] sneaking across the street, looking towards where the Brown residence was at." Defendant told the officer that he was staying with friends in a nearby apartment complex.

The following night, the fire on which the remaining count against plaintiff is based occurred at Ochoco Creek Park, a few blocks from Brown's home. At the scene of that fire, investigators found cups from soft drinks, a Sudafed package, and the top of a chewing gum package, all apparently from purchases at a nearby convenience store. Defendant had been seen with friends at that store before the fire started, purchasing four sodas and a pack of Wrigley's chewing gum. They had also been seen in the medicine aisle. Later that night, one of defendant's friends called the convenience store and told the store clerk that he wanted the store's surveillance tape. The store clerk could hear defendant in the background yelling that she would get her "ass kicked" if she did not give them the tape.

Defendant was subsequently arrested on the charges stemming from his role in the Brown and Ochoco Creek Park fires. A deputy testified at trial that, while defendant was in the Crook County Jail, defendant was overheard telling another inmate that the state was "`trying to pin the fire down at the DA's house on me.'" The other inmate asked defendant if he had an alibi, to which defendant replied, "`I told my girlfriend what to say to the cops.'"

During trial, the state sought to introduce into evidence two tape-recorded interviews

Page 355

conducted by police with defendant's accomplice, Daniel Buker. In those interviews, Buker told authorities that defendant had started the fires at the Brown residence and the park. Defense counsel objected on statutory, but not constitutional, grounds. The court ruled that the tapes were admissible as statements against interest. The jury subsequently found defendant guilty on all counts.

On appeal, defendant first assigns error to the admission of Buker's interview statements. Defendant argues that the statements were testimonial hearsay by a declarant whom defendant did not have the opportunity to cross-examine and that therefore they were inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as construed in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). That decision, which worked a significant change on preexisting law, was decided after defendant's trial; therefore, obviously, defendant did not cite it or make the Sixth Amendment argument that it validates....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Spieler, 10073080C
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • March 18, 2015
    ...and that the circumstances here are more akin to those in State v. Lincoln, 250 Or. 426, 443 P.2d 178 (1968), State v. Galloway, 202 Or.App. 613, 620–21, 123 P.3d 352 (2005), vac'd on other grounds, 345 Or. 315, 195 P.3d 62 (2008), and State v. Henderson, 242 Or.App. 357, 364–65, 255 P.3d 6......
  • State v. Galloway, A159696
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • October 10, 2018
    ...Judge. TOOKEY, J.294 Or.App. 346We consider this criminal case for the fourth time following our prior decisions in State v. Galloway , 202 Or. App. 613, 123 P.3d 352 (2005) ( Galloway I ), vac’d and rem’d , 345 Or. 315, 195 P.3d 62 (2008), State v. Galloway , 225 Or. App. 67, 200 P.3d 175 ......
  • State v. Marroquin, C041873CR.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • October 3, 2007
    ...the admission of the laboratory report violates defendant's confrontation rights involves a question of law, see State v. Galloway, 202 Or.App. 613, 618, 123 P.3d 352 (2005), rev. den., 340 Or. 201, 131 P.3d 195 (2006), and the predicate facts necessary to assess that question of law appear......
  • State v. Poitra, C010926CR; A115576.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • May 31, 2006
    ...inferences. State v. Page, 197 Or. App. 72, 78, 104 P.3d 616 (2005). As we held under similar circumstances in State v. Galloway, 202 Or.App. 613, 123 P.3d 352 (2005), rev. den., 340 Or. 201, 131 P.3d 195 (2006), the error here is apparent on the face of the As here, the defendant in Gallow......
  • 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