State v. Vasquez

136                  February 22, 2024            No. 122

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                 STATE OF OREGON

                   STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
                ROSA IDALIA VASQUEZ,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Washington County Circuit Court
                   18CR77601; A178230

  Ricardo J. Menchaca, Judge.
  Submitted January 25, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kristin A. Carveth, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for
appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Emily N. Snook, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Kamins,
Judge.
  TOOKEY, P. J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)              137

         TOOKEY, P. J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
one count of unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220, and
one count of menacing constituting domestic violence, ORS
163.190, raising two assignments of error. In her first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly
erred in admitting an English translation of the victim’s
9-1-1 call, which was in Spanish, under OEC 801(4)(a)(D),
because the victim’s statement occurred before June 2019,
the effective date of that hearsay exclusion. In her second
assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court
erred in admitting the translation under OEC 403, because
the translation’s probative value was outweighed by the risk
of misleading the jury. For the reasons below, we affirm
defendant’s convictions.
         The parties agree that our review of defendant’s
first assignment of error should be for plain error. Even if
the trial court plainly erred, however, under the circumstances of this case, the ends of justice do not require us
to exercise our discretion to correct that error, because it is
unlikely to have affected the verdict. State v. Peckron, 

, ___ P3d ___ (2024) (ends of justice do not
require that we exercise our discretion to correct an error
when the error was unlikely to have affected the verdict).
          Regarding defendant’s second assignment of error,
we have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in admitting the translation
under OEC 403. That is, the trial court properly considered
whether the translation’s probative value was substantially
outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury. See State v.
Sewell, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2013) (explaining that “[w]e review a trial court’s
decision to admit or exclude evidence under OEC 403 for
an abuse of discretion[;]” and that a trial court abuses its
discretion if it “fails to make a record which reflects an exercise of discretion” (internal citations omitted)); see also State
v. Mayfield, 

, 

 (1987) (outlining
analysis that a trial court should undertake in exercising
its discretion to determine whether challenged evidence
is admissible under OEC 403); State v. Borck, 

                                         State v. Vasquez

619, 638, 

 (2009), rev den, 

 (2010) (A
trial court properly exercises its discretion when “the totality of the attendant circumstances indicate that the court
did engage in the conscious process of balancing the costs
of the evidence against its benefits that Mayfield requires.”
(Internal citations omitted.)).
        Consequently, we affirm defendant’s convictions.
        Affirmed.