State v. Wyant

The confrontation clause only applies to hearsay evidence; text messages between a victim and Defendant give context to Defendant’s admissible texts and are not hearsay. State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 334, 49 P3d 785 (2002); State v. Davis, 291 Or App 146, 419 P3d 730, 363 Or 481 (2018).

Defendant appealed from a conviction for the murder of M, a former romantic partner. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motions for: (1) exclusion of text messages between M and Defendant, (2) a mistrial from admission of the texts, (3) exclusion of an email from M to Defendant, (4) a mistrial for the email’s prejudicial effect, and (5) exclusion of Defendant’s ex-wife’s testimony. On appeal, Defendant argued the texts and email were inadmissible hearsay and the admission of them violated the confrontation clause because the value was more prejudicial than probative. Additionally, Defendant argued the prejudicial effect was not remedied by the trial court’s limiting instruction. Lastly, Defendant argued his ex-wife’s testimony was irrelevant, and even if relevant, was inadmissible due to its highly prejudicial value because admission could not be harmless. In response, the State argued mistrials were unwarranted because M’s texts were not hearsay since they gave meaning to D’s responses and any error in the admission of the email was harmless because its content was otherwise admitted. Additionally, the State argued the admissions did not violate the confrontation clause because it only applies to hearsay statements and any prejudicial effects were mitigated by the court’s limiting instruction. Finally, the State argued Defendant’s ex-wife’s testimony was admissible because it was extremely probative of Defendant’s intent in the case. The confrontation clause only applies to hearsay evidence; text messages between a victim and Defendant give context to Defendant’s admissible texts and are not hearsay. State v. Moore, 334 Or 328, 334, 49 P3d 785 (2002); State v. Davis, 291 Or App 146, 419 P3d 730, 363 Or 481 (2018). The Court concluded that the confrontation clause did not apply because the text messages were not hearsay since they provided context for Defendant’s messages to which the confrontation clause did not apply. Additionally, the Court held the ex-wife’s testimony was admissible because Defendant did not preserve the argument for appeal. 

Affirmed.