State v. Lipka

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 05-03-2018
  • Case #: A159657
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Powers, J.; DeVore, P.J.; Garrett, J. (dissenting)
  • Full Text Opinion

“Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis commonly although not always an emotional one, or when the preferences of the trier of fact are affected by reasons essentially unrelated to the persuasive power of the evidence to establish a fact of consequence.” State v. Lyons, 324 Or 256 P2d 802(1996)

Defendant appealed a conviction for resisting arrest. Defendant argued that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in the admission of evidence that Defendant repeatedly used racial slurs when interacting with a police officer. On appeal, Defendant argued that, even if the statements were minimally relevant, this evidence should have been excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the potential harm of unfair prejudice under OEC 403 and the State had little need for the evidence because the statements were cumulative of other statements expressing his animus toward law enforcement. In response, the State argued that the evidence was necessary to to prove the defendant’s state of mind and any error in admitting the statements was harmless. “Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, commonly although not always, an emotional one, or when the preferences of the trier of fact are affected by reasons essentially unrelated to the persuasive power of the evidence to establish a fact of consequence.” State v. Lyons, 324 Or 256 (1996). The Court considered the probative value of the evidence and determined that Defendant's use of racial slurs was indicative of his state of mind and was probative in establishing motive for the offense he was charged with. The Court then considered the risk of unfair prejudice in admitting the statements as evidence and determined that, while the jury may need to work harder to avoid their own biases, inclusion of this evidence can still lead to a fair and impartial verdict. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top