State v. Dehaven

“Because defendant’s argument rests on the application of OEC 403 and we do not otherwise find that the admission of defendant’s prior convictions under OEC 609 was [in violation of Aranda].”

Defendant was convicted of domestic assault. He sought to exclude his prior convictions for impeachment purposes. The trial court denied his motion. The trial court did not instruct on the mental state for every element of the charged offense. The trial court did not schedule a restitution hearing following Defendant’s objection to the restitution amounts ordered. Defendant assigns error to these decisions. Due process does not require the trial court to engage in OEC 403 balancing when determining the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment. The court reasoned that the admission of the prior convictions was not sufficiently unfair. An error that is somewhat harmful, but is unlikely to change the outcome, does not warrant reversal. The court reasoned it was somewhat harmful to fail to instruct on the required mental state, but it had a low likelihood of affecting the verdict because significant evidence was introduced to find he was acting with the requisite mental state. Because the state stipulated to a plain error on the lack of restitution hearings, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise, affirmed.