State v. Lipka

“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” OEC 403.

Defendant appeals from a judgement of conviction for resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, and assigns error to the trial court’s admittance of evidence that defendant used the word “nigger” repeatedly when speaking to a police officer. On appeal, defendant relies on OEC 403 and contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The state in turn argues that the evidence of the racial epithet was important to demonstrate defendant’s mental state and therefore its probative value was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect.  “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” OEC 403. The Court of Appeals agreed with the state and found that the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence was not an abuse of discretion and within the range of permissible legal outcomes. The court opined that the evidence of the defendant’s use of the word, demonstrated his state of mind and was particularly probative in order to prove that defendant acted intentionally—which according to the court, was apparent given the context of the defendant’s animus towards police. Affirmed.