J.D. vs. S.K

Under OEC 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Respondent appealed a judgment granting petitioner’s request for a permanent stalking protective order (SPO) against him under ORS 30.866(1). Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to allow him to call two of his witnesses. Respondent argued that the trial court's determination (that the probative value of that proposed testimony, if any, was substantially outweighed by considerations of delay and needless presentation of evidence) was an abuse of their discretion.  The Court noted that under OEC 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.   After review of the record, the Court found that the testimony of two witnesses (the respondent’s girlfriend and a client) testifying about the respondent’s whereabouts when they were not  in fact together was of very low probative value, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the respondent’s motion.  Affirmed.