Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2011

State v. Stringham

State v. Stringham
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided April 6, 2011 · Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge
263 P.3d 1016; 242 Or. App. 70 (Pacific Reporter, Third Series)

State v. Stringham

Opinion

263 P.3d 1016 (2011)
242 Or. App. 70

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Jimmy Ray STRINGHAM, Defendant-Appellant.

08121877C; A143575.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Submitted February 4, 2011.
Decided April 6, 2011.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Ryan T. O'Connor, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Matthew J. Lysne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and NAKAMOTO, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in admitting an expert's diagnosis that the victim was sexually abused. The state concedes that the trial court erred in admitting the expert's diagnosis over defendant's objection, because the diagnosis was based purely on the victim's credibility and therefore amounted to impermissible vouching. State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346, 361-62, 234 P.3d 117 (2010); State v. Bainbridge, 238 Or.App. 56, 59, 241 P.3d 1186 (2010). We agree with the state's concession. Accordingly, we reverse defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.[1]

Reversed and remanded.

NOTES

[1] Defendant also argues that the court erred in instructing the jury. Given our disposition, we need not reach those assignments of error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.