State v. Gray

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 07-19-2017
  • Case #: A156613
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, J. for the Court; Tookey, P.J.; & Sercombe, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Evidence is relevant “so long as the inference desired by the proponent is reasonable, even if the evidence could also support a contradictory inference.” State v. Hanson, 280 Or App 196, 205 (2016).

Defendant appealed his conviction on 16 counts of aggravated theft by deception in the first degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence that defendant had attempted to make financial amends with some of his former clients. The trial court excluded the evidence on the basis that it was not factually or legally relevant. Defendant argued that the evidence was probative to demonstrate a lack of criminal intent to defraud. State argued that any conduct that occurred after the crime is necessarily irrelevant. Evidence is relevant “so long as the inference desired by the proponent is reasonable, even if the evidence could also support a contradictory inference.” State v. Hanson, 280 Or App 196, 205 (2016). By that definition, the Court of Appeals determined the evidence to be relevant, and that the error was not harmless. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search