State v. Baker

Under State v. Williams, 49 Or App 893 (1980), where there is strong evidence that the defendant engaged in the conduct of conviction and the fact-finder acquits the defendant of charges related to a purportedly prejudicial statement, prejudice is minimal.

Defendant appealed conviction for one count of manufacturing heroin and one count of delivering heroin. Defendant raised five assignments of error, one of which the Court addressed in detail: that the trial court erroneously “deny[ed] his motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor improperly referenced ‘stolen’ firearms during opening statement.” On appeal, Defendant argued “the court should have granted a mistrial” and that its curative instruction was insufficient. In response, the State argued “that a mistrial was not appropriate, the curative instruction was sufficient, and any error in the curative instruction was harmless.” Under State v. Williams, 49 Or App 893 (1980), where there is strong evidence that the defendant engaged in the conduct of conviction and the fact-finder acquits the defendant of charges related to a purportedly prejudicial statement, prejudice is minimal. The Court found that “the evidence against [D]efendant in this case was strong” and that rendered “the prejudicial effect of the remark * * * minimal.” The Court reasoned that the strength of that evidence, combined with the fact “the jury did not find the requested enhancement” relating to firearm possession and the fact that the remark “involved an improper reference to uncharged conduct, and not the invocation of a constitutional right,” sufficiently show Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial. Additionally, the minimal curative instruction was sufficient because the prejudice was minimal. Affirmed.