State v. Gibson

“Generally, a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to reconsider its earlier rulings, and may revisit a pretrial ruling when events at trial unfold that call for adjustments to that ruling.” State v. Langley, 363 Or 482, 521, 424 P3d 688 (2018), adh’d to as modified on recons, 365 Or 418, 446 P3d 542 (2019).

Defendant appealed a conviction of Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's ruling allowing the State to introduce a video of Defendant's arrest. On appeal, defendant argued that he was entitled to the Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction 1102, the voluntaring intoxication instruction, because there was evidence that he was so intoxicated that he lacked the requisite criminal intent and that the court improperly revisited its pretrial ruling on the inadmissibility of the video. “Generally, a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to reconsider its earlier rulings, and may revisit a pretrial ruling when events at trial unfold that call for adjustments to that ruling.” State v. Langley, 363 Or 482, 521, 424 P3d 688 (2018), adh’d to as modified on recons, 365 Or 418, 446 P3d 542 (2019). The Court held that the trial court did not err in its discretionary ruling under OEC 403 conditionally admitting the video, because the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the video's probative value. Affirmed.