State v. Grubb

Under OEC 403, evidence may be admitted if it is relevant to an issue raised on direct examination, even if it requires inquiring into a different set of facts from those that were elicited on direct examination.

Defendant appealed his conviction for DUII. The trial court admitted evidence that on the evening he was arrested, Defendant assaulted someone in violation of a restraining order. On appeal, Defendant argued that under OEC 401 and OEC 403, the probative value of the evidence “was minimal” and was “collateral to the question of whether Defendant drove while intoxicated.” Defendant contended that the prejudicial effect of the evidence was very high, because the evidence was “emotionally charged and distracting.” The State responded that the probative value of the evidence was high because, by defeating Defendant’s chronology, “it directly contradicted Defendant’s defense to the DUII charge.” The State contended that the prejudicial effect was low because there was little likelihood that the jury would confuse the issues at trial and convict Defendant of DUII based on assault allegations. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. Under OEC 403, the evidence was not “unfairly prejudicial” to Defendant because it was relevant to contest Defendant's conflicting accounts of the timeline of the crime, and once the issue was raised by Defendant on direct examination, it was fair game on cross examination, even to the extent of inquiring into a different set of facts from those that were elicited on direct examination. Affirmed.