ipl-logo

Case Brief State Of Oregon Vs Harris

569 Words3 Pages

Issue Case name: State of Oregon vs Kenneth James Harris, October 19th, 2017 Facts of the case: In the case there were two parties, one party including the defendant, Kenneth James Harris, and the State of Oregon. The dispute is based on the state of Oregon issuing a subpoena for the witness to come to trial for the case of the defendant, however, the witness failed to do so and was unavailable. The defendant argued that the only way the witness is unavailable is if the state did everything in their power to try to get the witness to court. The only thing the state did was provide the victims recording of the 9-1-1 call from the incident. Issue: Could the State of Oregon done more to produce the witness at trial? Holding: "The trial court then concluded that the state had made reasonable efforts to produce the witness and admitted the hearsay. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "more …show more content…

It is the defendants constitutional right in the state of Oregon, to have the victim at trial face to face with the defendant. The Oregon law says: "Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides a criminal defendant the right "to meet the witnesses face to face." That right of confrontation is not absolute, though. If the state shows that a witness is "unavailable," it may offer reliable hearsay evidence without presenting a live witness at trial. The issue in this case is what is required to establish the witness is unavailable" (Oregon v. Harris 2017). The unavailable process refers to when the state has done everything in their power to try to get the witness to come to trail. Things such as the state offering a ride to trial for the victim is one way of many trying to get a victim to come into court. The state has to do everything in the power and put their full exhausted effort in the process before they can qualify a victim as

Open Document