context: A witness may have multiple motivations for testifying to particular facts, and "[a]dmission of evidence of one type of bias does not render exclusion of evidence of another type of bias harmless."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 272 Or App 460, 470
citation_a.parenthetical: admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant--viz., because she was angry with him--did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so--viz., to curry favor with the state
citation_a.sentence: State v. Hernandez, 269 Or App 327, 333-34, 344 P3d 538 (2015) (exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant); see also State v. Miller, 272 Or App 737, 746-47, 358 P3d 301 (2015) (evidence that complainant had numerous strong reasons to be angry with defendant did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that complainant had physically attacked defendant, because the excluded evidence showed that complainant was actually angry with defendant and willing to use physical force against him); State v. Nacoste, 272 Or App 460, 470, 356 P3d 135 (2015) (admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant—viz., because she was angry with him—did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so—viz., to curry favor with the state).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 269 Or App 327, 333-34
citation_b.parenthetical: exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant
citation_b.sentence: State v. Hernandez, 269 Or App 327, 333-34, 344 P3d 538 (2015) (exclusion of evidence that complainant had an immigration reason for testifying against defendant was not harmless, even though there was evidence that complainant also had a financial reason for testifying against defendant); see also State v. Miller, 272 Or App 737, 746-47, 358 P3d 301 (2015) (evidence that complainant had numerous strong reasons to be angry with defendant did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that complainant had physically attacked defendant, because the excluded evidence showed that complainant was actually angry with defendant and willing to use physical force against him); State v. Nacoste, 272 Or App 460, 470, 356 P3d 135 (2015) (admission of evidence that victim had one motive to accuse defendant—viz., because she was angry with him—did not render harmless the erroneous exclusion of evidence that victim had a second motive to do so—viz., to curry favor with the state).