State v. Allen

Under OEC 403, although “needless presentation of cumulative evidence” may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the threat of prejudice, a defendant’s stipulation to “particular facts does not automatically render all other evidence touching on the same facts cumulative.”

Three shooters, which included Defendant, were convicted for the murder of a single victim, who was shot nine times by three different firearms. At trial, Defendant denied shooting the victim; he argued that although he had been nearby waiting for the other two suspects to finish buying marijuana from the victim, one of the shooters fired two guns simultaneously.  Defendant stipulated several facts, including his gang membership, relationship with the other suspects, and the history of the .380 handgun allegedly used to shoot the victim. Defendant was subsequently convicted of murder under ORS 163.115. On appeal, Defendant argued that the probative value of the State’s evidence with regard to the offered stipulated facts was outweighed by the potential for prejudice, and thus, the trial court abused its discretion because its requisite balancing analysis was “faulty.” Under OEC 403, although “needless presentation of cumulative evidence” may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the threat of prejudice, a defendant’s stipulation to “particular facts does not automatically render all other evidence touching on the same facts cumulative.” The court held that Defendant’s stipulations were not of “equal probative value” to the state’s evidence and its probative value was “not outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice.” The Court reasoned that under OEC 403, the trial court properly considered and admitted the evidence challenged by Defendant. Affirmed.