State v. Hutchinson

“When conducting the OEC 403 analysis, a trial court should consider how the proffered evidence would have fared under OEC 404(3) to determine whether the evidence would have been admissible under that rule for “one or more nonpropensity purposes”

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction. The defendant assigned error to the trial court's admission of evidence of past conduct because it was unfairly prejudicial and not relevant. OEC 401 defines “relevant evidence” as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” The Court reasoned that the defendant’s statements were relevant to establish an element of the crime, and that OEC 401 is a low bar for the admission of evidence. The Court further reasoned that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence because it limited the risk by instructing the jury to not use the evidence for concluding the defendant had a character trait for assaulting partners. Affirmed.