Summary
In State v. Weinstein, 108 Or.App. 486, 487, 814 P.2d 565 (1991), we agreed with the state's concession that the trial court erred in not allowing the defendant to impeach the state's witness by eliciting on cross-examination evidence that the witness was on probation; the evidence showed bias, because the witness had a motive to lie to avoid having his probation revoked.
Summary of this case from State v. DunningOpinion
D893447M; CA A63617
Argued and submitted June 20, 1991
Reversed and remanded August 21, 1991
Appeal from District Court, Washington County.
Karl W. Freerksen, Jr., Judge.
Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Cynthia A. Forbes, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Defendant appeals his convictions for assault, harassment and criminal mischief. ORS 163.160; ORS 166.065; ORS 164.354. The victim, Mullinix, testified that defendant, an acquaintance, came to his house and attacked him. Defendant sought to impeach him by eliciting on cross-examination evidence that Mullinix was on probation. Defendant argued that the evidence showed bias, because Mullinix had a motive to lie about the fight to avoid having his probation revoked. The state concedes that it was prejudicial error to exclude the evidence. We accept that concession.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.