State v. Fockler

"[T]his court has not held that a trial court must recite on the record how it evaluated the probative and prejudicial value of evidence and how it balanced the two. Rather, as Turnidge demonstrates, a court will make a sufficient record under Mayfield if the trial court's ruling, considered in light of the parties' arguments, demonstrates that the court balanced the appropriate considerations." State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 406 (2018) (discussing State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364 (2016) and State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631 (1987)).

Defendant was convicted of “recklessly caus[ing] physical injury to an animal,” ORS 167.315(1), for throwing a dog to the ground. The trial court admitted evidence of Defendant previously having thrown a cat, to which Defendant objected. The court ruled that the evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to this ruling. Defendant argued that the evidence was not relevant because 13 years passed since the cat episode and that the court did not make an appropriate record because the court did not utter the words “unfair prejudice.” The State argued that the evidence was relevant because it showed knowledge of injury that can result to animals from throwing them. Evidence is relevant if it has any likelihood of making a material fact “more probable or less probable.” OEC 401. But even relevant evidence is inadmissible if “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” OEC 403. "[T]his court has not held that a trial court must recite on the record how it evaluated the probative and prejudicial value of evidence and how it balanced the two. Rather, as Turnidge demonstrates, a court will make a sufficient record under Mayfield if the trial court's ruling, considered in light of the parties' arguments, demonstrates that the court balanced the appropriate considerations." State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392, 406 (2018) (discussing State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364 (2016) and State v. Mayfield, 302 Or 631 (1987)). First, the Court found that evidence of the cat episode was relevant for showing knowledge. Second, the Court found that there was a sufficient record because the trial court recited OEC 403 and engaged in the prescribed balancing test of OEC 403 before ruling. Therefore, the court held that the trial court did not err. Affirmed.