Defendant appeals his conviction on five counts of rape in the first degree upon his daughter. He had been charged by two different grand juries with eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and one count of sodomy in the first degree. One rape count was dismissed on the state's motion before trial and defendant was acquitted on the remaining charges.
1) Failure to suppress evidence seized from defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant predicated on an affidavit which contained allegedly stale information;
2) Failure to dismiss indictments returned by the second grand jury allegedly on the same evidence presented in the first grand jury proceeding without court order as required by ORS 132.430(2);
3) Failure to dismiss indictments returned by the second grand jury because the state had failed to present defendant's allegedly exculpatory testimony given before the first grand jury;
4) Refusal to allow defendant to lay a proper foundation for impeaching the complainant with prior statements made to the grand jury;
5) Permitting expert testimony concerning the reactions of victims in positions similar to complainant's;
6) Refusal to direct a verdict in favor of defendant on one charge where the events, as described by the complainant, allegedly could not have occurred; and
7) Refusal to give jury instructions relating to the credibility of a complainant in a rape case and to the introduction of evidence less satisfactory than that which could have been adduced.
At the outset we wish to indicate that we do not reach defendant's fourth assignment of error inasmuch as it relates exclusively to the sexual abuse charges on which defendant was acquitted.
The Search Warrant
Complainant was first interviewed by police on March 1, 1979. After a 45 minute interview, an affidavit was prepared requesting a warrant to search defendant's home for certain sexual devices allegedly used on complainant within the last six months. The search was conducted on March 5, 1979. The indictments subsequently returned charging sexual abuse in the second degree by means of these devices alleged that the incidents had occurred between September 7, 1977, and June 12, 1978 (complainant's recollection was that the acts had occurred during the school year.)
Defendant filed a motion to suppress the devices seized and a motion to controvert the six month time frame stated in the affidavit. He contends on appeal that, because the time element in the affidavit was incorrect, the reference to time must be stricken and the remaining information in the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause that the items sought would be on the premises.
ORS 133.693(5) states that, where information in the affidavit has been controverted,
This statute was intended to incorporate case law relating to the procedure for dealing with inaccuracies in the affidavit. State v. Hughes, 20 Or.App. 493, 502 n. 1, 532 P.2d 818 (1975).
In State v. McManus, 267 Or. 238, 251, 517 P.2d 250, 256 (1973), our Supreme Court stated the applicable procedure:
The officer who prepared the affidavit here testified at the hearing that, during the brief initial interview, complainant was very reluctant to discuss any of the incidents and that he had to proceed by means of leading questions which complainant generally answered either yes or no. He admitted at the hearing that the six month time frame was incorrect. It is clear that the trial judge found that the error was not intentional. Therefore, the proper approach is not, as defendant contends, to strike all reference to the time frame but to inquire whether, had the affidavit alleged that the acts occurred between September, 1977, and June, 1978, the affidavit would support issuance of the search warrant. Compare State v. Hughes, supra at 501, 532 P.2d 818 (apparently intentional overstatements of affiant's information required the court to completely disregard those statements); State v. Diaz, 29 Or.App. 523, 525-26, 564 P.2d 1066 (1977).
Assuming that the affidavit had alleged an eighteen month, as opposed to a six month, time frame, we hold that the search warrant would properly have issued. In State v. Vely, 37 Or.App. 235, 586 P.2d 1130 (1978), we held that a warrant was properly issued for a search of defendant's car for condoms and evidence of sexual intercourse alleged to have occurred in the back seat over 90 days earlier. We quoted from State v. Ingram, 251 Or. 324, 327, 445 P.2d 503, 504 (1968):
In State v. Kirkpatrick, 45 Or.App. 899, 609 P.2d 433 (1980), we held that an affidavit alleging that defendant had shown obscene photographs to two children within the last two years was sufficient, given the nature of the items sought, to justify issuance of a warrant.
In this case, the sexual devices sought were not illegal to possess nor readily consumable. They are not, unlike narcotics, the object of trafficking. Under the circumstances, it was likely that the items would still be in defendant's possession despite the lapse of as much as eighteen months since their alleged use on complainant. They were therefore admissible at trial.
The Grand Jury Proceedings
The evidence presented to the first grand jury on April 17, 1979, was the product of the 45 minutes interview with complainant previously referred to. Defendant also testified. His testimony consisted of a denial of all charges and an explanation why his daughter might fabricate charges against him. Based on the evidence, the grand jury returned two indictments for rape. No action was taken on other alleged rapes. Thereafter, further interviews with complainant and other witnesses were conducted and corroborative evidence gathered which resulted in discovery of further incidents and a more accurate time-frame for the charges made by the first grand jury. This evidence was submitted to the second grand jury on June 7, 1979, which indicted on the other nine charges. Defendant did not testify before this grand jury.
Defendant argues that, under ORS 132.430(2), evidence submitted to the first grand jury could not be submitted to the second without a court order and that his allegedly exculpatory testimony should have been made available to the second grand jury. The trial court found:
ORS 132.430 states, in pertinent part:
We have held that this statute does not apply where a defendant has not been held to answer. State v. Franklin, 21 Or.App. 721, 724, 536 P.2d 538 (1975). Defendant conceded in the memorandum accompanying his motion to dismiss the indictments on this theory that he had not been taken into custody or otherwise held to answer on any charge prior to the second grand jury. Absent such a circumstance, ORS 132.340(1) does not operate. The trial court specifically found that the first grand jury had not voted on indictments other than the ones it returned. We are bound by this finding. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 443 P.2d 621 (1968). Where a person has not been held to answer, there is no requirement that a grand jury take specific action with respect to each alleged criminal act considered by it and no basis for presuming the grand jury found charges groundless on which it did not return indictments. The motion to dismiss on this ground was properly denied.
In support of the argument that his testimony should have been brought to the attention of the second grand jury, defendant relies on cases holding that the prosecution at a grand jury violates due process if it fails to make available exculpatory evidence known at the time of the proceeding. See, e.g., United States v. Mandel, 415 F.Supp. 1033, 1040-42 (D.Md. 1976).
What evidence is exculpatory must be gauged according to the function of the grand jury. While it is bound by law to
Defendant in his testimony denied all charges. He offered no evidence that any of complainant's statements were objectively untrue. The net effect of the testimony is to challenge complainant's credibility. Unless the person charged admits guilt, he will deny the charges. A holding that the evidence here was exculpatory is tantamount to requiring the state to allow the defendant to testify whenever it is aware that he denies the charge. This would unduly burden the grand jury process. See Loraine v. United States, 396 F.2d 335 (9th Cir.1968) (government need not produce all evidence in its possession tending to undermine credibility of its witnesses); State v. Chang, rev'd, sub nom. State v. Bell, 589 P.2d 517, 524-26 (Hawaii 1978) (victim's misidentification of defendant in lineup need not have been brought to grand jury's attention).
A Children's Services Division caseworker with substantial experience working with sexually abused children was permitted to testify that it was not uncommon for children, as complainant here testified, to perceive and remember that the sexual acts had occurred during sleep. Defendant does not challenge the witness' qualifications as an expert witness but contends that this testimony amounts to expert comment on the evidence aimed at bolstering complainant's credibility.
Expert evidence relating to a witness' credibility is admissible if it goes to the ability of the witness to perceive, remember or relate. See State v. Longoria, 17 Or.App. 1, 20-21, 520 P.2d 912, rev. den. (1974). Psychiatric evidence calling into question the complainant's personality or veracity is, however, an invasion of the jury's function. State v. Walgraeve, 243 Or. 328, 333, 412 P.2d 23, 413 P.2d 609 (1966).
We believe the evidence here was proper. The average juror would not have experience dealing with sexually abused children and may believe accounts of this nature questionable. The evidence was that it is not uncommon for abused children to perceive and remember sexual encounters in this manner. The testimony was helpful to the jury and is admissible.
Defendant contends that one of the incidents upon which he was convicted could not have occurred as complainant described and that the trial court improperly
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give two requested instructions. The first instruction reads:
Defendant correctly points out that this instruction was approved in State v. Stocker, 11 Or.App. 617, 619-20, 503 P.2d 501 (1972). Giving the cautionary instruction was discretionary with the trial court, however, and we do not believe the court abused its discretion in refusing to give it. State v. Yates, 239 Or. 596, 599, 399 P.2d 161 (1965).
We also believe refusal to give the "less satisfactory evidence" instruction (based on Uniform Jury Instruction No. 205.01) was not an abuse of discretion. The instruction reads:
Complainant's testimony indicated that defendant had placed a towel under her during several of the incidents. Defendant argued to the jury that the state should have obtained family towels and tested them for semen stains. The testimony related apparently to instances which occurred several years before trial. Under the circumstances, refusal to give the instruction was proper.