- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 09-10-2015
- Case #: A151863
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J.; Nakamoto J.; and Egan J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a judgment of three counts of sexual abuse Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it allowed evidence of defendant’s other acts in without balancing the danger of unfair prejudice against its probative value. The state responded that defendant’s argument was unpreserved or the error was harmless. The State’s contention in this case was that Defendant’s argument on appeal was unpreserved. The State acknowledged that, Defendant asked the court to weigh the “unfair prejudice” against the “relevance of the evidence,” but contended that Defendant’s argument is unpreserved because he failed to identify the Due Process Clause as the source of that requirement. The Court disagreed. The Court determined that in holding that OEC did not require a balancing test the trial court necessarily ruled that due process did not require the court to perform a balancing test. Further the Court stated OEC 403 balancing is “the only way" that a court can ensure that the admission of other acts evidence is not unfairly prejudicial and a violation of fundamental concepts of justice. Accordingly, the Court held that the error was not harmless because the trial courts error violated Defendant's due process rights. Reversed and remanded.