State v. Dill

428 November 4, 2026 No. 1066 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SPENCER ALLEN DILL, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 22CR30229; A185758 David F. Rees, Judge. (Judgment dated September 27, 2024) Melvin Oden-Orr, Judge. (Judgment dated October 29, 2025) Submitted September 11, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Laura A. Frickert, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* LAGESEN, C. J. Reversed and remanded. ______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 428 (2026) 429 LAGESEN, C. J. Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation for failure to complete substance-abuse treatment and impos- ing a sentence of 37 months’ incarceration, and an amended judgment that added a 23-month term of post-prison super- vision (PPS) to defendant’s sentence. He assigns error to the trial court’s admission of the testimony of two witnesses by simultaneous remote transmission and to the imposition of PPS outside his presence. We reverse and remand. The trial court permitted two witnesses testify remotely at defendant’s probation revocation hearing. Defendant objected to the remote testimony below, but only on constitutional grounds; he did not argue that ORS 131.045 prohibited remote testimony without his agreement. However, we “decide[ ] cases on sub-constitutional grounds, where available, even though litigants argue only consti- tutional error.” State v. Conger, 319 Or 484, 490, 878 P2d 1089 (1994). In view of that principle, the state concedes that defendant’s objection to remote testimony would have made it apparent to the trial court that defendant did not “agree to [the witnesses’] appearance by simultaneous electronic transmission” as required by ORS 131.045(2)(b) and that the trial court erred by permitting the state’s witnesses to appear electronically over defendant’s objection. See State v. Smith, 344 Or App 111, 113-14, 580 P3d 339 (2025) (“Under ORS 131.045(2)(b), the parties and the court are required to agree to an appearance via simultaneous electronic trans- mission. Here, defendant did not agree to H’s testimony by simultaneous electronic transmission. ORS 131.045 thus prohibited her remote testimony.”). We agree with and accept the state’s concession. Because the statute provides a complete answer to the issue raised in these assignments of error, we do not reach defendant’s constitutional arguments. See id. at 112 (declining to reach “the constitutional issues present in this case because ORS 131.045 provides ‘a com- plete answer’ to the issue presented on appeal”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The state further concedes that the error in per- mitting remote testimony was not harmless and requires reversal of the judgment revoking defendant’s probation. 430 State v. Dill We agree that the credibility of the witnesses who testi- fied remotely in this case played a significant role in the trial court’s decision to revoke, given that those witnesses provided the only evidence against defendant regarding the allegations that were the basis of the court’s decision to revoke probation. Under those circumstances, the deci- sion to permit remote testimony and the consequences that decision had on the trial court’s ability to evaluate the wit- nesses’ demeanor likely affected the trial court’s decision to revoke. We therefore reverse the probation revocation order and remand the case to the trial court. In light of that decision, we need not reach defen- dant’s second assignment of error, that the trial court plainly erred when it imposed a term of post-prison super- vision for the first time in the judgment and outside defen- dant’s presence. Reversed and remanded.