Oregon Appellate Ct - March 8, 2017
by: Sara Werboff • March 10, 2017 • no comments
Evidence - Victim's Statements Were Admissible as Evidence of His State of Mind
In this aggravated murder case, the court reverses defendant's convictions, concluding that the trial court erred when it excluded statements contained in the victim's emails. The court concludes that those statements were relevant to the victim's state of mind and were not hearsay. The court further concludes that the error was not harmless because the statements contained in the emails were qualitatively different than other evidence that was admitted. Defendant was convicted of murdering G. Both men were enmeshed in the drug-dealing world, but G had the outward appearance of being a successful naturopathic physician. G was an investor in defendant's drug operation, supplying defendant with money to purchase drugs for resale. On the morning when G was shot, the two men were transporting $20,000. Defendant admitted to shooting G and taking the money when he fled, but contended that G had pulled the gun on him first, tried to take the money that he believed defendant owed him, and was shot in self-defense. In support of the defense, defendant sought to introduce evidence that G was losing money rapidly and was becoming increasingly paranoid that his employees were stealing from him. Defendant in particular sought to introduce emails that G wrote to various people that would be probative of G's state of mind. The trial court admitted some statements in the emails but excluded emails that were written several months before the shooting or because they were about "facts" and therefore "not really a state of mind."
The court concludes that the emails were relevant as direct or circumstantial evidence that G was concerned about his finances. To the extent that the emails contained factual details about G's finances, those were relevant to provide factual context for his other statements that were evidence of his state of mind. And, the evidence that G's desperation over money increased over time made it more likely that G had a motive to act desperately and violently towards defendant. The court also concludes that the evidence is admissible under OEC 803(3) as evidence of G's state of mind and the factual statements providing context are not hearsay. To the extent that the trial court's decision was discretionary under OEC 403, the court concludes that the trial court improperly weighed the probative value of the evidence. Finally, the error excluding the emails was not harmless. The emails went to a central issue in the case and were qualitatively different than other evidence of G's behavior.
State v. Bement, 284 Or App 276 (2017) (Flynn, J.)
State v. Clark, 284 Or App 197 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.)
DHS v. M.A.H., 284 Or App 215 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.)
Smith v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 284 Or App 226 (2017) (Duncan, P.J.)
State v. Kennedy, 284 Or App 268 (2017) (Garrett, J.)
