State v. Childs

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to exercise discretion to correct plain error in admitting a sexual abuse diagnosis where the error did not likely affect the court’s verdict
• declining to exercise discretion to correct plainly erroneous admission under Southard of sexual abuse diagnosis testimony in light of trial court’s indication that “it did not particularly rely on the sexual abuse diagnosis in reaching its decision”
• medical witness vouching not likely to have affected the court’s verdict where there was photographic evidence corroborating the victim’s account of the abuse and the court explicitly eschewed any reliance on the expert testimony
• although allowing the testimony was error, it was harmless, because the case was tried to the court, the court expressly stated that it “did not particularly rely” on the diagnosis, and the testimony about abuse was corroborated by photographs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Inman
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-12-30· cited 42×
• State v. Volynets-Vasylchenko
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-11-23· cited 11×
• State v. Pickett
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-10-12· cited 6×
• State v. Bahmatov
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-06-29· cited 6×
• State v. Arreola
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-06-20· cited 6×
• State v. Brooks
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-01-25· cited 3×