293 Or. App. 90 - State v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In reviewing a trial court's application of OEC 403, we begin by summarizing all of the evidence and procedure related to the trial court's ruling.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 295 Or. App. 156 - State v. Perez-Garcia · 294 Or. App. 328 - State v. Garcia

2. “"[a]lthough defendant did not expressly refer to OEC 403 or request balancing, such an explicit reference is not required if the circumstances otherwise suffice to place the court and opposing parties on notice of defendant's contention that any probative value was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. See State v. Walker , 350 Or. 540 , 552, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011) ('The appropriate focus * * * is [on] whether a party has given opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to understand the contention and to fairly respond to it.'); Peeples v. Lampert , 345 Or. 209 , 220, 191 P.3d 637 (2008) (explaining that the touchstone of the preservation requirement is procedural fairness to the parties and the trial court). Here, in addition to challenging the relevance of the evidence, defendant also asserted that it would be 'highly prejudicial.' Under the circumstances, we conclude that that assertion was sufficient to raise a challenge under OEC 403. See, e.g. , State v. Roberts , 291 Or. App. 124 , 129 n. 3, 418 P.3d 41 (2018) (holding that the defendant had adequately preserved OEC 403 objection even though his argument to trial court primarily focused on relevance and spoke little of prejudice, where he asserted that the evidence would be 'extremely prejudicial')."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 328 - State v. Garcia

3. “Although defendant made a clear relevance objection to that evidence, he did not articulate a separate OEC 403 * * * objection to it-an objection that assumes the relevance of evidence but asks for its exclusion on the ground that 'its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.' " (Quoting OEC 403.) The state adds that defendant's assertion that the evidence was "extremely prejudicial”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 294 Or. App. 328 - State v. Garcia