Oregon Supreme Court--August 16th, 2012
by: Aalvarez • August 16, 2012 • no comments
Prior Bad Acts-Preservation
Defendant was charged with murder and manslaughter. The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence of 5 of defendant's prior bad acts as irrelevant to prove the defendant's identity, intent, or motive. During the trial court argument, the state conceded that the acts were likely irrelevant to prove intent, but argued that they were relevant in proving motive. Towards the end of the hearing, the state newly claimed that one of the acts, a robbery that occurred several hours after the alleged murder, was relevant to prove the defendant's "continuing course of conduct."
Such an argument was never briefed in any of the trial court pleadings and other than a few remarks in front of trial court, the state never made any attempt to apply that theory to the facts of the case or explain that theory of inadmissibility. The trial court granted defendant's motion to exclude the prior bad acts in its entirety.
On appeal, the state argued that the robbery was relevant to prove the defendant's continuing course of conduct as well as his flight from the scene, and argued that evidence of the defendant's flight was relevant in proving his guilty conscious.
The Oregon Supreme Court holds that this argument was not properly preserved, noting that:
...it is unlikely that the trial court understood the state's single, unadorned reference to "flight" in the context of its "continuing course of conduct" argument to encompass all of the layers of meaning and complex relevance arguments the state now presents to this court. Consequently, we hold that that reference was insufficient to preserve either of the theories of relevance that the state now presents to this court.
Affirmed. State v. Haynes
Relevancy-Defendant's Statements
The defendant wrote a pre-trial motion, arguing for the exclusion of defendant's interview with police officers as irrelevant. The trial court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. The trial court's order stated:
Most of this interview was conducted after defendant was advised of Miranda rights and knowingly waived his Miranda rights. The court finds that there are 3 sections of the interview that are relevant and admissible. The parties will have to submit redacted video or transcripts to comply with this order, or agree the interview will be admitted after Miranda with minor deletion (i.e., prison). 1. Defendant's admission that he is familiar with the area of 7th and Skidmore because his sister lived in the area at the time of the incident. 2. Defendant's admission that he may have dated the deceased.3. Defendant's admission that he had a memory of other events on or about the day of the incident, but generally no memory of that time period.
On appeal, the state contended that the trial court erred by denying the entire interview to be relevant. Without commenting on the state's theory of relevance, the Court holds that the state's argument was based on a misinterpretation of the trial court's order, since "the trial court's order does not appear to exclude any evidence that the state claims should be admitted; rather, it appears that the trial court either has not yet or is not going to exclude that evidence." Since the state's argument was based on a misinterpretation of the trial court's order, the Court declines to rule on the state's relevancy arguments. Affirmed. State v. Haynes
