State v. Roberts

In determining whether evidence is admissible over an OEC 403 objection, a trial court must expressly consider the evidence’s relevance, probative value, and risk of unfair prejudice. State v. Brown, 272 Or App 424, 431-32, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for one count each of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and incest. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of evidence of two prior uncharged acts of sexual violence over his OEC 403 objection. On appeal, Defendant argued the admission of evidence was an abuse of discretion because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. In determining whether evidence is admissible over an OEC 403 objection, a trial court must expressly consider the evidence’s relevance, probative value, and risk of unfair prejudice. State v. Brown, 272 Or App 424, 431-32, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015). The Court of Appeals held that it could not assess whether the trial court abused discretion in admitting the evidence because the trial court did not provide an explanation for its relevance or probative value. Vacated and remanded with instructions to provide an explanation of why the evidence was not unduly prejudicial in light of its probative value.