Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Plueard

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided March 20, 2019No. A162112Published

1DissentAoyagi, J.

I agree with the majority that, under State v. Henley , 363 Or. 284, 422 P.3d 217 (2018), the trial court erred in admitting Petke's testimony that "grooming is a gradual process of building trust with a child with the purpose of establishing such a level of trust to allow for an opportunity for sexual abuse," without requiring the state to establish the requisite level of scientific validity and reliability of that evidence. I disagree with the disposition, however, because I believe that the error was harmless on this record. In my view, the majority makes two errors in its harmlessness…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. HenleyOregon Supreme Court · 2018
  2. State v. PlueardCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API