state of mind exception in Oregon

2025State v. Presley, 108 Or App 149, 152 , 814 P2d 550 (1991); see also State v. Beden, 162 Or App 178, 184 , 986 P2d 94 (1999) (concluding 1 In the alternative, defendant argues (1) that D’s testimony was inadmis- sible under OEC 403 because the probative value of the evidence was substan- tially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and (2) that the testimony was hearsay that did not satisfy the state-of-mind exception under OEC 803(3).

2025State v. Presley, 108 Or App 149, 152 , 814 P2d 550 (1991); see also State v. Beden, 162 Or App 178, 184 , 986 P2d 94 (1999) (concluding 1 In the alternative, defendant argues (1) that D’s testimony was inadmis- sible under OEC 403 because the probative value of the evidence was substan- tially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and (2) that the testimony was hearsay that did not satisfy the state-of-mind exception under OEC 803(3).

2023Instead, a court may appropriately address those concerns by providing limiting instructions, scruti- nizing the relevance of the statements, and weighing the probative value of the statements against the risk of preju- dicial misuse under OEC 403.” Id. at 778-79 .

2023Instead, a court may appropriately address those concerns by providing limiting instructions, scruti- nizing the relevance of the statements, and weighing the probative value of the statements against the risk of preju- dicial misuse under OEC 403.” Id. at 778-79 .

2014But I think in balance all of it would be admissible under [OEC] 803(3) exception for state of mind as discussed by the Supreme Court in State v. Brown[, 310 Or 347 ].” Defendant renews his objections on appeal, contending that the testimony was hearsay, not admissible under the state-of-mind exception, and that the testimony constituted prior bad acts evidence inadmissible under OEC 404(3).

2002In stating his objections to the trial court, he did *373 not segregate inadmissible portions of Anderson’s statements from the admissible ones. “ ‘It is well established that when evidence is offered as a whole and an objection is made to the evidence as a whole and is overruled, the trial court will ordinarily not be reversed on appeal if any portion of the offered evidence was properly admissible, despite the fact that the other portions would not have been admissible had proper objections been made to such portions of the offered evidence.’ Sproul v. Fossi, 274 Or 749, 755 , 548 P2d 970 (1

2018For example, the state relies on United States v. Cohen , 631 F.2d 1223 (5th Cir. 1980).

2018Id.

2018The state of mind exception allows statements of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed if the statement "relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant's will." Id.

2004Id.

2003Clegg, 332 Or at 441 ; see also Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 803.03(3)(a) at Art VIII-77 (noting that authorities have been divided as to whether statements that constitute circumstantial rather than direct evidence of state of mind are hearsay; noting that the issue has “little practical significance” because, even if hearsay, such statements are nonetheless admissible under the state-of-mind exception).

2002In stating his objections to the trial court, he did *373 not segregate inadmissible portions of Anderson’s statements from the admissible ones. “ ‘It is well established that when evidence is offered as a whole and an objection is made to the evidence as a whole and is overruled, the trial court will ordinarily not be reversed on appeal if any portion of the offered evidence was properly admissible, despite the fact that the other portions would not have been admissible had proper objections been made to such portions of the offered evidence.’ Sproul v. Fossi, 274 Or 749, 755 , 548 P2d 970 (1

2002In stating his objections to the trial court, he did *373 not segregate inadmissible portions of Anderson’s statements from the admissible ones. “ ‘It is well established that when evidence is offered as a whole and an objection is made to the evidence as a whole and is overruled, the trial court will ordinarily not be reversed on appeal if any portion of the offered evidence was properly admissible, despite the fact that the other portions would not have been admissible had proper objections been made to such portions of the offered evidence.’ Sproul v. Fossi, 274 Or 749, 755 , 548 P2d 970 (1

2001Clegg, 161 Or App at 207-10 . 4 Notwithstanding the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the trial court erred, however, that court affirmed defendant’s convictions, because it concluded that the error was harmless.

1984State v. Shirley, 7 Or App 166 , 488 P2d 1401 (1971), rev den (1972).

1984State v. Shirley, 7 Or App 166 , 488 P2d 1401 (1971), rev den (1972).