Background
Spencer Allen Dill appealed a judgment revoking his probation for failure to complete substance-abuse treatment and imposing 37 months’ incarceration. He also challenged an amended judgment that added 23 months of post-prison supervision.
At the revocation hearing, the trial court allowed two state witnesses to testify remotely over Dill’s constitutional objection. Although Dill did not separately argue that ORS 131.045 barred the testimony without his agreement, the Court of Appeals addressed that subconstitutional ground because his objection made clear that he did not consent to the witnesses’ remote appearances.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals accepted the state’s concession that ORS 131.045(2)(b) prohibited the witnesses from testifying by simultaneous electronic transmission without the agreement of the parties and the court. Because the statute fully resolved the issue, the court did not reach Dill’s constitutional arguments.
The court also accepted the state’s concession that the error was not harmless. The remote witnesses supplied the only evidence supporting the allegations on which the trial court revoked probation, and their credibility played a significant role in that decision. The court therefore reversed and remanded without deciding whether imposing post-prison supervision outside Dill’s presence was plain error.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 131.045(2)(b) requires the parties and the court to agree before a witness may appear by simultaneous electronic transmission.
- A constitutional objection to remote testimony made Dill’s lack of agreement apparent, allowing the court to resolve the appeal on statutory grounds.
- The error was not harmless because the remote witnesses provided the only evidence supporting the allegations that led to revocation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that, in Oregon criminal proceedings, a court may not permit remote witness testimony under ORS 131.045(2)(b) over a party’s objection. When the improperly admitted testimony is central to a probation-revocation decision, reversal may be required.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.