Inhabitants of Townsend v. Walcutt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, in the absence of a sufficient offer of proof, the defen- dant had not “provided this court with a record from which we can determine whether the error—if any—was harm- less”
• explaining that offer of proof is required to permit Court of Appeals to determine whether exclusion of evidence is harmless or not
• observing that we will not presume harmfulness in the absence of an offer of proof
• party claiming evidentiary error must develop record sufficient to evaluate whether any error is harmless
• “Under [OEC 103], no offer of proof is necessary when the nature of the excluded evidence is adequately reflected in the argument of counsel to the court.”
• defendant’s failure to provide an offer of proof, either with a narrative statement about the potential testimony or with the witness’s actual testimony in the jury’s absence, prevented this court from determining whether evidentiary error was harmless

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).