State v. Beisser, 308 P.3d 1121

Defendant was charged with two counts of fourth-degree assault for incidents involving roommate Saner (Count 1) and neighbor Allen (Count 2); jury convicted on both counts.
Defendant asserted self-defense as to Count 1, seeking to admit evidence of prior interactions between him and Saner on March 4 (verbal dispute about a TV) and March 7 (bathroom altercation where Saner allegedly pushed defendant under water).
Trial court excluded defendant’s and roommate Parks’s testimony about the March 4 incident; it allowed defendant to testify about March 7 but excluded Parks’s corroborating testimony as improper bolstering.
Investigating officer testified she called defendant on March 9 but he “refused to meet” her; defendant moved for a mistrial claiming this commented on his right to silence; motion denied.
On appeal, court held exclusion of Parks’s March 7 testimony was error and not harmless as to Count 1; reversed and remanded for new trial on Count 1. Denial of mistrial re: officer’s comment was affirmed as not an abuse of discretion for Count 2.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Parks’s March 7 testimony (prior violent act) for self-defense	Exclusion may have been error but was harmless because defendant’s own testimony shows he acted from anger, not fear	Parks’s testimony was admissible under OEC 404(1) to show Saner’s violent character and corroborate defendant’s reasonable belief of imminent harm	Reversed: testimony admissible under OEC 404(1); exclusion was not harmless; new trial on Count 1 required
Admissibility of defendant’s testimony about March 4 TV incident	Trial court properly excluded it as non-violent, irrelevant to self-defense	Testimony about verbal aggression was relevant to Saner’s character and defendant’s belief of danger	Not decided on appeal (remanded)
Admissibility of Parks’s testimony about March 4 TV incident	Trial court exclusion justified for lack of violent conduct	Testimony would show pattern of hostility relevant to self-defense	Not decided on appeal (remanded)
Mistrial motion based on officer’s testimony that defendant “refused to meet”	Single isolated reference unlikely to lead jury to draw adverse inference; nonprejudicial	Comment improperly commented on defendant’s right to remain silent; requires mistrial	Affirmed: even if improper comment, denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion

State v. Lunow, 131 Or. App. 429 (1994) (prior violent acts of alleged victim admissible under OEC 404(1) when relevant to defendant’s reasonable belief in need for self-defense)
State v. Whitney-Biggs, 147 Or. App. 509 (1997) (discussion of character evidence and OEC 404 principles)
State v. Charboneau, 323 Or. 38 (1996) (describing improper bolstering and limits on credibility enhancement)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003) (standard for harmless evidentiary error: little likelihood the error affected the verdict)
State v. Griffin, 19 Or. App. 822 (1974) (exclusion of evidence about victim’s intoxicated violent tendencies was prejudicial to self-defense claim)
State v. Larson, 325 Or. 15 (1997) (mistrial denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; context may render improper comments nonprejudicial)
State v. Smallwood, 277 Or. 503 (1977) (generally reversible error to admit evidence of exercise of constitutional rights when prejudicial)
State v. Farrar, 309 Or. 132 (1990) (isolated, non-exploited references to collateral matters may not mandate mistrial)