State v. Apodaca

“Evidence of a defendant’s prior bad act that otherwise would be inadmissible under OEC 404(3) may be admissible under that rule for the non-character purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony” State v. Grey, 175 Or App 235, 250, 28 P3d 1195 (2001), rev den, 333 Or 463 (2002).

Defendant appealed a conviction of assault in the fourth degree that constituted domestic violence. Defendant assigned error to the trial court allowing statements that defendant had slapped the victim on previous occasions into evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the curative-admissibility doctrine prevented the evidence from being admitted. In response, the state argued that curative-admissibility doctrine did not apply and that the evidence was necessary to respond to evidence admitted by Defendant. “Evidence of a defendant’s prior bad act that otherwise would be inadmissible under OEC 404(3) may be admissible under that rule for the non-character purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony” State v. Grey, 175 Or App 235, 250, 28 P3d 1195 (2001), rev den, 333 Or 463 (2002). The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was admissible because the probabtive value of the evidence admitted is outweighed by the possibility of prejudice. Affirmed.