Sullivan v. Popoff

DE MUNIZ, S. J.,

concurring.

The majority correctly characterizes petitioner’s post-conviction claim, “that trial counsel’s failure to raise a hearsay objection to Collingham’s testimony that the bouncer had described petitioner as the ‘aggressor’ when Collingham first arrived on the scene violated his constitutional right to the adequate and effective assistance of counsel.” 274 Or App at 232.1 concur in the majority’s answer to that specific claim and the judgment. I write separately to comment on two issues regarding the admissibility and the consideration by a jury of out-of-court…