STATE v. PROSE (2020)

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree criminal mistreatment, ORS 163.205, for withholding necessary and adequate care for her three-month-old son, L. The state's case was based on evidence that defendant and her codefendant, Eisenbeisz (L's father), had gone on a methamphetamine binge while L was in their apartment. The binge ended when Eisenbeisz overdosed and required hospitalization, which prompted a Department of Human Services investigation that revealed methamphetamine in L's system.

In her first assignment of error, defendant argues that the state's evidence was legally insufficient to establish the type of risk to L that is required under ORS 163.205. Having considered the record in light of our cases construing that statute, including State v. Burciaga, 263 Or. App. 440, 328 P.3d 782, adh'd. to on recons., 264 Or. App. 506, 333 P.3d 1098, rev. den., 356 Or. 575, 342 P.3d 88 (2014), we reject that assignment of error without additional discussion. In her remaining assignments, defendant contends that the trial court erred by admitting a pediatrician's testimony about the results of L's urine test. The state concedes that, although the pediatrician was entitled to rely on the results to form her opinion, her testimony should not have been admitted as substantive evidence of the test results over defendant's hearsay objection. The state further concedes that the evidential error was prejudicial and requires us to reverse and remand defendant's conviction. We agree with and accept the state's concession. See State v. Knepper, 62 Or. App. 623, 626, 661 P.2d 560 (1983) (“OEC 703 does not authorize an expert witness to tell the jury the inadmissible details of the basis of his opinion.”).

Reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM