State v. Rockett

"When a trial court is presented with a request to exclude evidence as unfairly prejudicial under OEC 403, the court should (1) consider the quantum of probative value of the evidence and consider the weight or strength of the evidence; (2) determine how prejudicial the evidence is and the extent to which the evidence may distract the jury from the central question whether the defendant committed the charged crime; (3) balance the prosecution's need for the evidence against the countervailing danger of unfair prejudice; and (4) consider whether to admit all the proponent's evidence, none, or some portion of it." State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 423 P3d 43 (2018).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for 13 sexual offenses.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court's admission of evidence from Defendant's Facebook account and hidden-camera evidence and to its imposition of compensatory fines.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the incorrect rulings entitle him to a reversal or a remand because the trial court failed to properly conduct OEC 403 balancing.  In response, the State argued that Defendant's arguments were unpreserved or did not present a basis for reversal because Defendant failed to request that the court conduct OEC 403 balancing. The State further argued that even if the Defendant adequately preserved his objection, the trial court implicitly conducted 403 balancing.  "When a trial court is presented with a request to exclude evidence as unfairly prejudicial under OEC 403, the court should (1) consider the quantum of probative value of the evidence and consider the weight or strength of the evidence; (2) determine how prejudicial the evidence is and the extent to which the evidence may distract the jury from the central question whether the defendant committed the charged crime; (3) balance the prosecution's need for the evidence against the countervailing danger of unfair prejudice; and (4) consider whether to admit all the proponent's evidence, none, or some portion of it." State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 423 P3d 43 (2018). The Court found that Defendant did preserve their arguments by their written pre-trial motion. The Court held that, although the trial court did not expressly conduct 403 balancing, this was not indicative of failure to balance, but rather indicative of Defendant's failure to request explanation or offer any further arguments for exclusion. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the trial court was authorized to impose a statutory fine and therefore did not err in imposing compensatory fines.  Affirmed.