State v. Altabef

When balancing under OEC 403, the trial court engages in four parts of that process—analyzing the probative value or strength of the evidence, determining the prejudicial nature of the evidence, balancing the prosecution’s need for the evidence against the countervailing potential for prejudice, and ruling as to what portion of the evidence is admissible. State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631, 634 (1987).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for first-degree sodomy, and first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court on remand when it admitted prior acts evidence. Defendant argued that the court overstated the probative value of evidence of a prior alleged sexual abuse and understated its prejudicial value. The state argues that the trial court acted within its discretion when it determined that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial nature of the evidence. When balancing under OEC 403, the trial court engages in four parts of that process—analyzing the probative value or strength of the evidence, determining the prejudicial nature of the evidence, balancing the prosecution’s need for the evidence against the countervailing potential for prejudice, and ruling as to what portion of the evidence is admissible. State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631, 634 (1987). The Court ruled that the state did effectively weigh the probative value against the prejudicial value. The Court found that the state needed the evidence to prove credibility of the victim’s testimony, which regarded why the victim delayed reporting the abuse. Affirmed.