State v. Garcia-Rocio, 399 P.3d 1009

Defendant was convicted of first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and first-degree sodomy based on his adult daughter's allegations of abuse circa 1995–96.
Police recorded a pretext call (admitted at trial) and a video-recorded station interview of defendant (with an interpreter).
Three short portions of that interview—in which detectives questioned defendant about allegations against his brother—were played for the jury; the trial court admitted them over defendant’s relevance and OEC 403 objections (and after a Miranda dispute about the first clip).
Defendant objected at a pretrial hearing and asked the court to perform OEC 403 balancing and to make a record of that balancing; the court ruled orally (saying only that it would allow the clips, and on one fourth clip that it would exclude it).
On appeal the court held that the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to make a record demonstrating that it had consciously engaged in the Mayfield OEC 403 balancing process and that the error was not harmless; the conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court complied with OEC 403/Mayfield when defendant requested balancing and a record	State argued evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial; defendant didn’t forfeit preservation	Defendant argued court failed to perform or record Mayfield balancing as requested	Court: Error of law — trial court did not demonstrate it engaged in Mayfield OEC 403 balancing; reversal and remand
Preservation of the Mayfield-record argument	State argued defendant failed to preserve by not pressing after the ruling	Defendant relied on pretrial objections and appellate precedent	Court rejected state’s preservation objection (citing Anderson precedent) and reached merits
Whether admission was harmless error given other evidence	State argued evidence against defendant was substantial	Defendant argued close credibility fight; clips could improperly bias jury	Court: Not harmless — likelihood the clips could have improperly affected verdict; reversal required
Whether admission was abuse of discretion on the merits under Mayfield	State argued clips provided context and were probative of credibility	Defendant argued low probative value and high unfair prejudice so should have been excluded	Court did not resolve whether the original call was within range of discretion because remand required for proper Mayfield balancing; concurrence and dissent analyzed merits differently

State v. Mayfield, 302 Or. 631 (1987) (articulates four-step OEC 403 balancing framework and requires a record reflecting exercise of discretion)
State v. Barkley, 315 Or. 420 (1993) (trial court must make a record that reflects exercise of discretion under Mayfield)
State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412 (2017) (record must indicate how trial court weighed competing interests; appellate courts may not simply speculate)
State v. Baughman, 361 Or. 386 (2017) (review of OEC 403 call is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003) (harmless-error standard: affirm only if little likelihood error affected verdict)
State v. Shaw, 338 Or. 586 (2005) (distinguishes legal error review of OEC 403 from abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535 (1986) (evidence is prejudicial under OEC 403 when it tempts jury to decide on improper basis)
State v. Moore, 324 Or. 396 (1996) (unfair prejudice defined as undue tendency to suggest decisions on an improper, often emotional, basis)