Preview:

FILED: May 09, 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH MICHAEL KINNEY, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court C082453CR A143099

Marco Hernandez, Judge. Argued and submitted on July 28, 2011. Jedediah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services. Paul L. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Denis M. Vannier, Assistant Attorney General. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Brewer, Judge.* ARMSTRONG, P. J. Affirmed. *Brewer, J., vice Sercombe, J.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

ARMSTRONG, P. J. Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of four counts of encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.684, and four counts of encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree, ORS 163.686. He raises three assignments of error, all but one of which we reject without discussion. We write only to address his contention that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence despite his offer to stipulate that the disputed evidence depicted sexual conduct involving a child and that its creation involved child abuse. Because we determine that defendant's proffered stipulation did not make the evidence irrelevant or require its exclusion on the ground that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger that it would cause unfair prejudice to defendant, we affirm. Pursuant to a search warrant, police examined the hard drive of defendant's computer and found two images and two videos depicting child sexual abuse on it. Based on defendant's possession, dissemination, and exchange of the images and videos (the evidence), the state charged defendant with first- and second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, ORS 163.684; ORS 163.686.1

1

We cite the current version of ORS 163.684 and ORS 163.686 because, even though those statutes were amended after defendant committed the crime in this case, those amendments are immaterial to our analysis. Or Laws 2011, ch 515,

Download A143099.pdf

Oregon Law