State v. Sperou

Decision Date06 June 2019
Docket NumberCC 14CR10194 (SC S065471)
Citation365 Or. 121,442 P.3d 581
Parties STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Michael George SPEROU, Petitioner on Review.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Steven J. Sherlag, Portland, filed the briefs and argued the cause for petitioner on review.

Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

GARRETT, J.

Defendant was charged with first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, ORS 163.411, for alleged crimes that he committed against a girl, SC, who belonged to the church that defendant led as pastor. Before trial, the state disclosed that it would call as witnesses SC and six other women who would testify to having been sexually abused by defendant years earlier when they were young girls attending his church. Defendant, who denied that any abuse had occurred, moved to preclude the testimony of the other six women. He also moved to prohibit the use of the word "victim" at trial to describe SC or the other accusers. The trial court denied both motions.

At trial, SC and the other six women testified to having been abused by defendant, and the prosecutor and some of the state's witnesses referred to SC and the other six women as defendant's "victims." Defendant was convicted and the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. We granted review to address two questions: whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the six other women who described being abused by defendant, and whether the trial court erred in allowing SC and those other women to be described as "victims" by the prosecutor and state's witnesses.

As explained below, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's pretrial motion to the extent that defendant sought to categorically prohibit the prosecutor from referring to SC as a "victim." We reach a different conclusion, however, regarding the use of that word by the state's witnesses. Under these circumstances, where the only evidence of abuse was the testimony of SC and the other women, and where defendant's theory of the case was that no abuse had occurred and that SC and the other women were either lying or mistaken, the use of the word "victim" by the state's witnesses amounted to impermissible vouching, and the trial court should have granted defendant's motion to preclude such references. Because we further conclude that the trial court's error in that regard was not harmless and requires remand, it is unnecessary to resolve defendant's other arguments regarding the admission of "other acts" evidence.

BACKGROUND

The facts relevant to our review are undisputed. In the 1980s and 1990s, defendant was the pastor of a communal church that focused on "intense orthodox scholarship in the original languages of the Bible." The core members of the church lived in cooperative homes located near or next to each other. Over the years, tension grew within the community due to interpersonal conflicts involving defendant and other members. Beginning in approximately 1994, some of the members' children told their parents that defendant had sexually abused them. The members confronted defendant but did not report the allegations to law enforcement.

In 1996, a group of members left the church. In 1997, one of the former members reported to police that defendant had sexually abused children in the congregation. Detective Sturdevant investigated. Some children told Sturdevant that defendant had sexually abused them when they were living in the cooperative homes. One child was SC, the complaining witness in this case, who was then around 10 or 11 years old; she told Sturdevant that defendant had touched her sexually but she did not say that he had penetrated her. Despite the children's allegations, some children and their parents did not want to press charges against defendant at that time. No charges were filed.

In 2013, some of the children who had reported sexual abuse in 1997—now women in their 20s and 30s—again reported to authorities that defendant had sexually abused them as children. Detective Helwig reopened the investigation. In total, Helwig learned of seven women, including SC, who alleged that defendant sexually abused them when they were girls living in the communal homes. Helwig interviewed SC, who reported for the first time that defendant had digitally penetrated her on multiple occasions between 1993 and 1996.

The Multnomah County district attorney filed charges against defendant but was limited in doing so by the statute of limitations. Specifically, charges arising from the allegations by the six women other than SC were time-barred either because those women were over 30 years old or because they had not alleged any conduct by defendant that they had not disclosed in 1997. See former ORS 131.125(2) (2013), amended by Or. Laws 2015, ch. 417, § 1.1 Because SC did allege something that she had not previously disclosed, however (the acts of digital penetration), charges based on those allegations were not time-barred. Accordingly, defendant was indicted on three counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration.

Defendant denied all wrongdoing. He asserted that the allegations against him were either lies or false memories motivated and fostered by ill-will flowing from the church's fracturing in 1996.

Before trial, the state disclosed that it would call as witnesses SC and the six other women who had alleged sexual abuse by defendant. Defendant filed pretrial motions seeking, as relevant here, two forms of relief. First, defendant sought to preclude the six women other than SC from testifying about prior acts of sexual abuse by defendant. Defendant argued that the women's testimony was inadmissible propensity evidence under OEC 404(3), which provides that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith." Second, defendant moved "for an order that all present, including all parties, witnesses, and staff shall be precluded from referring to the complainant, including but not limited to [SC] and any other alleged ‘victim’ of abuse, as a ‘victim,’ " arguing that such references would, under the circumstances of the case, undermine the presumption of defendant's innocence and constitute improper vouching for the credibility of the accusers.

The state opposed both motions. With respect to defendant's argument under OEC 404(3), the state argued that the testimony of the six other women was admissible under the second sentence of that rule. See OEC 404(3) ("[Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts] may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident."). The state also argued that the evidence was admissible under OEC 404(4) ("evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant is admissible if relevant except as otherwise provided by" other rules, statutes, or the state or federal constitutions).

The trial court ultimately denied defendant's motion as to the "other acts" evidence and allowed the women to testify; however, in doing so, the court did not specify whether it deemed the evidence admissible under OEC 404(3), OEC 404(4), or both.2

The state also opposed defendant's "vouching" argument and moved to require all parties and witnesses to refer to SC as the "victim" because she met the definition of that term under Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS chapter 147 (each defining "victim" as "any person determined by the prosecuting attorney or the court to have suffered direct financial, psychological or physical harm as a result of" a crime). The trial court denied both defendant's and the state's motions.

At trial, SC and the six other accusers testified that defendant had sexually abused them on multiple occasions when they were girls living in the communal homes. The state also called as witnesses the two investigating detectives, Helwig and Sturdevant, as well as several former members of the church who had lived in the communal homes during the time period of the alleged abuse. Both Helwig and Sturdevant repeatedly referred to SC and the other testifying accusers as "victims," and a former member of the church referred to SC as a "victim" multiple times during her trial testimony. The prosecutor referred to SC and the other women as "victims" numerous times throughout trial, including during the state's opening statement, case-in-chief, and closing argument. Defendant did not object to those descriptions during the trial. The state did not present any physical or eyewitness evidence corroborating the allegations of SC or the other accusers.

Defendant's theory at trial was that former church members had fabricated the allegations against him. He highlighted inconsistencies in the women's allegations and emphasized that most of the children, parents, and law enforcement knew of the allegations in 1997 yet decided not to press charges at that time.

After a 13-day trial, the jury convicted defendant of all three counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration.

Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions to exclude the "other acts" evidence and to prohibit the use of the term "victim." The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, and defendant petitioned for review, which we granted.

DISCUSSION

Because it is dispositive, we begin with defendant's argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion regarding the use of the term "victim" at trial to describe SC and the other witnesses who testified that defendant abused them. Defendant contends that the repeated use of that term by the prosecutor and state's witnesses constituted impermissible "vouching" for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • State v. Weaver
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 3 Septiembre 2020
    ... ... C. Remand We therefore conclude that the state's violation of Article I, section 11, requires defendant's convictions to be reversed. Because defendant may be retried, we believe that it is appropriate to address two issues that may arise on remand. State v. Sperou , 365 Or. 121, 141, 442 P.3d 581 (2019) (addressing "issue likely to arise again on remand" after determining that the defendant's convictions needed to be reversed). 1. Orren's plea agreement As explained above, insofar as defendant wishes to call Orren as a witness, as he did in his initial ... ...
  • State v. Bolivar
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 27 Octubre 2020
    ... ... See State v. Albino , 130 Conn.App. 745, 24 A.3d 602 (2011) ; State v. Sperou , 365 Or. 121, 442 P.3d 581 (2019) ; State v. Devey , 138 P.3d 90 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). The state counters that pursuant to Z.W. v. Foster , the trial court maintains broad discretion in determining how to refer to crime victims in court proceedings. 244 Ariz. 478, 9, 422 P.3d 582 (App ... ...
  • Davis v. Cain
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • 20 Mayo 2020
    ... ... relief, because his trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate in failing to object when the prosecutor engaged in vouching regarding the state's key witness during opening statement. In response, the superintendent does not dispute that the prosecutor engaged in vouching but argues that ... 364] of witnesses." State v. Sperou , 365 Or. 121, 129, 442 P.3d 581 (2019). [467 P.3d 822] In that vein, prosecutors have substantial leeway to argue about the evidence and to try ... ...
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • 30 Junio 2021
    ... ... Engle , 278 Or. App. 54, 55, 373 P.3d 1191, rev. den. , 360 Or. 465, 384 P.3d 154 (2016). We set out the following facts, as established at the pretrial hearing on defendant's motion to exclude eyewitness identification evidence, consistent with that standard of review. See State v. Sperou , 365 Or. 121, 137, 442 P.3d 581 (2019) (explaining that an appellate court's "review of a trial 494 P.3d 943 court's ruling is limited to the record as it had developed at the time of the ruling"). Victims Barney and Pelletier went to visit Phillip Mosttler at his home one night. Phillip's son ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • § 5.4 Litigating Motions to Suppress
    • United States
    • Criminal Law in Oregon (OSBar) Chapter 5 Remedies for Unlawful Search and Seizure
    • Invalid date
    ...the party's contentions to preserve them for purposes of appeal. Walker, 350 Or at 550; see also State v. Sperou, 365 Or 121, 139-40, 442 P3d 581 (2019) (applying the principle). In light of the foregoing principles, a defendant's motion to suppress, or the defendant's argument at the motio......
  • Ethics Watch
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar South Carolina Lawyer No. 35-1, July 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...against vouching is the general rule, not unique to South Carolina, as the cite to the Walker case indicates. See also State v. Sperou, 442 P.3d 581 (Ore. 2019) (referring to the "vouching rule"). While vouching issues arise most often in criminal cases, the rule applies to civil cases as w......

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