Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KENNETH DWAYNE BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. Klamath County Circuit Court
Richard B. Rambo, Judge.
Submitted on December 03, 2010.
Reversed and remanded.
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals, challenging his convictions following a jury trial on one count of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, and one count of attempted first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 161.405(2)(c), both pertaining to the complainant, AK, who was under the age of 14. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's admission, over defendant's objection, of the testimony of a CARES examining physician, Dr. Purvis, in which Purvis recounted her diagnosis that AK “had experienced sexual abuse.” Purvis rendered that diagnosis notwithstanding that her physical examination of AK was “normal” and without any physical evidence of sexual abuse.
On appeal, defendant contends that, under State v. Southard, 347 Or 127, 218 P3d 104 (2009), which was decided approximately four months after the trial of this matter, the admission of Purvis's diagnosis was reversible error.1 The state concedes that, under State v. Bainbridge, 238 Or.App. 56, 241 P3d 1186 (2010), which followed State v. Lupoli, 348 Or 346, 234 P3d 117 (2010), the trial court's admission of Purvis's testimony recounting her diagnosis was reversible error. That concession is well founded, and we accept it. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Bainbridge, 238 Or.App. at 58.
Reversed and remanded.
FOOTNOTES
FN1. The trial court's admission of the disputed evidence was predicated, in part, on our disposition in State v. Southard, 214 Or.App. 292, 164 P3d 351 (2007), which the Supreme Court subsequently reversed.. FN1. The trial court's admission of the disputed evidence was predicated, in part, on our disposition in State v. Southard, 214 Or.App. 292, 164 P3d 351 (2007), which the Supreme Court subsequently reversed.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 0700310CR
Decided: December 29, 2010
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)