Oregon Supreme Court - August 2, 2018
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
403 BALANCING - Findings
Trial court did not commit reversible error by failing to explain reasoning for ruling pursuant to OEC 403. Court of Appeals reversed, trial court affirmed.
Someone stole money from the victim’s bank account using an ATM. Video from the ATM was offered in evidence, but the person’s face was not clear in the video. The state sought to offer defendant’s booking video, at which time he wore clothes similar to those worn in the ATM video. Defendant objected that evidence of the defendant’s incarceration was unfairly prejudicial. The court admitted the video and gave a cautionary instruction.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not adequately explain its reasoning. The Supreme Court disagreed. The court and counsel discussed the evidence and its prejudicial and probative values, and the court viewed the evidence, demonstrating that the court engaged in the necessary balancing. The court also noted that defendant did not object that the findings were insufficient, foreclosing one of the defendant’s arguments.
State v. Anderson 363 Or 392 (July 19, 2018) (Kistler, J.)