State v. Renly

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was no “open door” to the admissibility of testimony because it “did not in any way tend to negate, explain or counterbalance any misleading or unfair impression that defendant’s evidence could possibly have caused the jury”
• hearsay testimony describing abuse by a criminal defendant of other victims of abuse cannot be corroborative evidence
• “Whether evidence corroborates an act of sexual conduct and defendant’s participation is a preliminary question of fact, because it concerns the admissibility of evidence.”
• “If a trial court examines the proffered hearsay under pertinent factors and finds that the statements are inherently trustworthy, then the evidence can be admitted without violating a defendant’s confrontation rights.”
• “OEC 803(18a)(b) protects a defendant’s confrontation rights with greater clarity, detail and precision than Roberts and [Idaho v.] Wright, [497 US 805, 110 S Ct 3139, 111 L Ed 2d 638 (1990)] seem to require.”
• no “open door” where evidence offered to rebut did “not in any way tend to negate, explain or counterbalance any misleading or unfair impres- sion that defendant’s evidence could possibly have caused the jury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).