- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 12-23-2015
- Case #: A154002
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; Flynn, J.; & De Muniz, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed his convictions of menacing, criminal mischief, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and criminal trespass. Defendant contended that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior bad acts while not providing the juries a limiting instruction regarding those acts or properly using the balancing test provided in State v. Mayfield. At the conclusion of the trial, Defendant did not request a limiting jury instruction and also failed to object when the trial court did not deliver one, therefore not preserving his arguments for review. Defendant acknowledged this, asking this Court to review the convictions for “plain error.” This Court “concluded that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in [State v.] Williams, any error by a trial court in failing to provide a Leistiko instruction, absent a request by a party, is not plain. Moreover, this Court concluded that even when a trial court does not go through the precise steps of the Mayfield analysis, the court still meets the requirements of Mayfield so long as the record establishes that the trial court considered the elements outlined in Mayfield.