<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">From DOJ’s Appellate Division’s updates:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">**This first case isn’t DV-related but it’s important in terms of how critical 403 balancing has become when arguing Other Acts
motions in DV/SA cases. As you see from the “notes” section, DOJ plans to petition for review.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">EVIDENCE—OEC 403: Because the record did not reflect that trial court had<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">engaged in OEC 403 balancing before admitting evidence, the case had to be<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">remanded.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Anderson</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 282 Or
App 24, __ P3d __ (2016) (Lincoln) (AAG Shannon<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Reel). Defendant stole an ATM card from a woman in whose home he was staying and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">used it to withdraw funds from her bank account. He was charged with identity theft and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">second-degree theft. At trial, the state introduced into evidence photographs and a video<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">of defendant using the ATM, in which he attempted to hide his face. The state also<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">introduced a video of him being booked at the police station, in order to show that he was<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">wearing the same or similar clothing as he wore in the ATM video. Defendant objected<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">to the admission of the booking video, contending that it was unduly prejudicial. The<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">trial court (Judge Thomas Branford) watched the video “to decide the balancing issues,”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence, saying “it’s relevant.” Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">was found guilty.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: Reversed and remanded (Flynn,
J.). [1] Under OEC 403, relevant evidence<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">may be excluded if its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">unfair prejudice.” [2] The trial court was required to demonstrate that it exercised its<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">discretion by balancing the probative value of the video against the danger of unfair<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">prejudice.
<i>See State v. Mayfield</i>, 302 Or 631 (1987). [3] The record does not reflect that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the trial court had engaged in the required balancing where, in response to defendant’s<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">objection, the court ruled that it was admitting the video because “it’s relevant.” The<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">court found that the record failed to reflect that the trial court had assessed the “quantum<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">of probative value” of the evidence or the extent to which the video might improperly<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">bias the jury. Thus, the trial court erred in admitting the evidence. [4] The error was not<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">harmless.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A155404.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A155404.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Notes</span></u></i></b><b><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:</span></u></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">
[a] Judge DeVore dissented. He would have found that the record sufficed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">to show that the trial court implicitly exercised its discretion to determine that the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">probative value outweighed its prejudice. The dissent contends that the majority ignored</span><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
the context of the parties’ arguments <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">regarding the relevance versus the prejudicial effect of the video, and also incorrectly discounts the trial
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">court’s statement that it wanted to watch the video twice to help it “decide the balancing issues.” [b] The state intends to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">petition for review in this case.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">CONTEMPT: Where trial court found that defendant had good-faith belief that<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">restraining order had been lifted, it erred by finding her in contempt for “willfully”<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">violating the order under ORS 33.015(2)(b).<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Nicholson</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 282 Or
App 51, __ P3d __ (2016) (Douglas) (AAG Robert<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Wilsey). Defendant was charged with contempt, ORS 33.015(2)(b), for violating a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Family Abuse Protective Act (FAPA) restraining order. At trial, she argued that because<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the protected party, her husband, had told her by phone that he was at the courthouse<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">having the order lifted, her subsequent contact with him was not a “willful” violation of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the order because she had a good-faith belief that the order had been lifted. In its findings<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">of fact, the trial court (Judge Frances Burge) expressly credited defendant’s statement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">that she believed what her husband had told her.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: Reversed (Haselton, S.J.).
[1] A defendant who acts based on a good-faith<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">belief that a judicial order has been dismissed cannot be deemed to have “willfully”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">violated that order, for purposes of ORS 33.015(2)(b). [2] Because the trial court<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">expressly had found that defendant had a good-faith belief the restraining order had been<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">lifted, the trial court erred by finding that she had “willfully” violated the order.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158526.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158526.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">SENTENCING—C</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">ONDITIONS OF
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">C</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">ONFINEMENT</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:
Trial court lacked authority to<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">impose no-contact order as a condition of incarceration or post-prison supervision.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Hall</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 282 Or App
9, __ P3d __ (2016) (Clatsop) (AAG Keith Kutler).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Defendant assaulted the victim, his girlfriend. The sentencing court (Judge Cindee<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Matyas) imposed a no-contact order as a condition of incarceration or post-prison<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">supervision; defendant did not object.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: Reversed and remanded for
entry of a corrected judgment; otherwise<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">affirmed (Duncan, P.J.). The sentencing court plainly erred by imposing the no-contact<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">provision.
<i>See State v. Langmayer</i>, 239 Or App 600, 601 (2010) (trial courts lack<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">authority to impose conditions of incarceration);
<i>State v. Reed</i>, 235 Or App 470, 474<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">(2010) (trial courts lack authority to impose conditions of post-prison supervision).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158198.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A158198.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></body>
</html>