- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 04-04-2018
- Case #: A157503
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, PJ. for the Court; Egan, CJ.; & Aoyagi, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed judgment of conviction of two counts of first-degree rape. Defendant assigned error to the trial court allowing online and recorded conversations to be admitted into evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statements qualified as hearsay and that they were more prejudicial than probative. In response, the State argued that the statements were not admitted for their truth, but rather to provide context for other statements made by Defendant. “Out of court statements may be relevant, not for their truth, but to provide context,” and therefore do not qualify as hearsay. State v. Chandler, 360 Or 323, 380 P3d 932 (2016). The Court of Appeals held that the challenged statements were admissible because they were not admitted for their truth but as necessary context for relevant, admissible statements by Defendant. Affirmed.