State v. Jasso

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 02-29-2012
  • Case #: A143128
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A party must provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the Court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately, if correction is warranted.

Defendant appeals his jury conviction for robbery and burglary. Defendant and three others committed a robbery where one of the other men held an Airsoft submachine gun to the victim’s head and demanded money, bongs, and marijuana. In Defendant’s backpack, police found a drawing of a masked man pointing a gun at a woman and demanding her jewelry. At trial, the State sought to introduce Defendant’s drawing, arguing (1) that it was relevant and admissible under OEC 404(4) (“other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant”), and (2) that the court was not constitutionally required to balance prejudicial effect against probative value under OEC 403. The trial court admitted the drawing over Defendant’s objection, ruling that it was relevant to show that Defendant's involvement was greater than simply being present at the time of the robbery and a jury convicted him. Defendant appealed, and the Court held that defendant did not preserve his constitutional argument for appeal. Affirmed.

Advanced Search