Background
Andrew James Anaya appealed his conviction for first-degree robbery under ORS 164.415. At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence that the alleged victim, C, missed work and lost income by appearing before the grand jury and at trial.
Over Anaya’s objection, the trial court admitted that evidence as relevant to C’s credibility. The state argued that C’s willingness to lose money by participating in the proceedings made his testimony more believable.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the lost-income evidence was not relevant to C’s credibility on the record presented. The state’s proposed inference depended on the premise that C voluntarily testified despite a personal financial cost, but the state offered no evidence that C appeared voluntarily rather than under compulsory process or the prospect of being compelled.
The error was not harmless because the state’s case rested on C’s credibility, and the prosecutor expressly relied on C’s lost income during closing argument to contend that he lacked a motive to lie. The court concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that the jury used the evidence to credit C’s account and convict Anaya. It reversed and remanded for a new trial without reaching Anaya’s other assignments of error.
Key Takeaways
- A witness’s financial cost from testifying does not support a credibility inference without evidence that the witness chose to testify voluntarily.
- When testimony may have resulted from compulsory process, the witness’s lost income does not reasonably indicate truthfulness.
- Improper credibility evidence is not harmless when credibility is central and the prosecutor urges the jury to rely on that evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision limits prosecutors’ ability to bolster a witness’s credibility by emphasizing the burdens of participating in a criminal case. Before such evidence can support an inference of credibility, the record must establish the predicate facts that make the inference reasonable.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.