State v. Conrad

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 08-24-2016
  • Case #: A154218
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A court’s decision to admit evidence after conducting OEC 403 balancing meets the Mayfield requirements even if the court does not expressly follow the Mayfield analysis, so long as the record shows the court considered the substantive matters prescribed in Mayfield.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. He allegedly subjected two children (victims) less than 14 years of age to sexual contact. The victims were interviewed at CARES, where they reported similar descriptions of Defendant’s sexual abuse. At trial, the recorded videos of the CARES interviews were admitted as evidence after the court denied Defendant's pretrial motion to exclude them under OEC 403.

On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred by admitting as evidence the videos of the victims’ CARES interviews because the videos were more prejudicial than probative, and, therefore, the court erred in failing to conduct OEC 403 balancing as required by Mayfield. A court’s decision to admit evidence after conducting OEC 403 balancing meets the Mayfield requirements even if the court does not expressly follow the Mayfield analysis, so long as the record shows the court considered the substantive matters prescribed in Mayfield. State v. Borck, 230 Or App 619 (2009). Because the trial court was specifically tasked with resolving Defendant’s pretrial motion, which (1) explicitly set out the OEC 403 balancing issue, and (2) limited the scope of Defendant's argument before the trial court, the Court found the trial court sufficiently conducted OEC 403 balancing as to the “costs of the evidence against its benefits” as required by Mayfield. Affirmed.

Advanced Search