State v. Apodaca, 420 P.3d 670

Defendant (Mario) was charged with fourth-degree assault (domestic violence) for injuries victim M sustained in a nightclub parking lot; victim denied defendant hit her at trial.
Witness Cowger saw a man grab and strike M; M initially told officers she did not want to get her boyfriend in trouble and later described being punched to a paramedic but blamed a fall at trial.
Officers arrested defendant three months later; defendant told officers that if he had hit M three months earlier, she "would be dead" by the time of arrest.
On cross-examination of Officer Ganci, defense elicited testimony about domestic-violence patterns and whether a three-month gap suggested escalation rather than an isolated incident.
The state sought to recall Officer Black to testify that M had told him defendant had "slapped her previously, but nothing further." The trial court allowed that testimony, concluding the defense had "opened the door."
Jury convicted defendant; he appealed the admission of the prior-slapping statement and, separately, probation-violation judgments that relied on the conviction. The court affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by admitting M's statement that defendant had previously slapped her	Cross-examination invited an inference that the charged assault was an isolated incident; prior-slapping evidence was admissible to rebut that misleading impression	Cross-examining Ganci about domestic-violence patterns was proper and did not open the door to prior-bad-acts evidence; admission was not necessary to prevent unfairness	Court held defense opened the door; prior-slapping statement admissible to rebut inference; admission not reversible error
Whether probation-violation judgments (based on the assault conviction) must be reversed if the assault conviction is reversed	The assault conviction stands, so probation-violation judgments remain valid	(Relies on challenge to the assault conviction)	Court affirmed probation-violation judgments because it affirmed the assault conviction

Wynn v. Sundquist, 259 Or. 125 (1971) (curative-admissibility doctrine allowing evidence to counter prior inadmissible evidence)
State v. Stapp, 266 Or. App. 625 (2014) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Grey, 175 Or. App. 235 (2001) (prior bad-act evidence may be admissible to impeach or rebut misleading testimony)
State v. Oliver, 275 Or. App. 552 (2015) (prior acts probative to impeach claim of nonviolence)
State v. Renly, 111 Or. App. 453 (1992) (rejecting admission where prior acts did not rebut or explain defendant's evidence)
State v. Craine, 271 Or. App. 101 (2015) (discussion of curative admissibility and preventing unfairness)