State v. Oxford

To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the Court took the context of the case into consideration along with other factors. See State v. Evans, 211 Or App 162, 166-68 (2007), aff’d, 344 Or 358 (2008) (Whether the prejudice was so great a mistrial was the only legally acceptable alternative, whether the prejudice was cured by jury instruction, and whether the incident was sufficiently isolated).

Defendant appealed a conviction for twelve counts of different sexual crimes. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial, after a witness had testified to conversations between Defendant and another, when the court had originally granted a motion to exclude them. On appeal, Defendant asserted that he was denied his right to a fair trial and the prejudice could not have been cured with a jury instruction. In response, the State argued that the trial court acted within its discretion because it offered a curative instruction and the witness retracted the statement. To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the Court took the context of the case into consideration along with other factors. See State v. Evans, 211 Or App 162, 166-68 (2007), aff’d, 344 Or 358 (2008) (Whether the prejudice was so great a mistrial was the only legally acceptable alternative, whether the prejudice was cured by jury instruction, and whether the incident was sufficiently isolated). The Court found several facts persuasive: Defendant’s refusal to take the offered curative instruction, the quick stop to the testimony, the testimony’s isolation, and the correction of the prior testimony. Thus, the Court held that the isolated statements were not so prejudicial that Defendant was denied a fair trial. Affirmed.