State v. Gibson, 451 P.3d 259

Defendant (Gibson) punched, kicked, and walked on his then-girlfriend Z’s car while intoxicated, denting it; charged with second-degree criminal mischief (ORS 164.354).
Police initially did not observe damage due to poor lighting; Z later called police after seeing damage; officers arrested Gibson about two hours after the incident.
An arrest body-camera video showed Gibson still intoxicated and generally cooperative; trial court initially excluded that video under OEC 403 as unfairly prejudicial.
Defendant requested UCrJI 1102 (voluntary intoxication instruction); the court ruled that if that instruction were given, the previously excluded arrest video would become admissible and offered a limiting instruction option.
To avoid admission of the video, defendant withdrew his request for UCrJI 1102; the jury convicted him and he appealed, challenging (1) the conditional admission ruling, (2) denial of a speedy-trial dismissal, and (3) denial of a motion to prevent the victims from leaving the state.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the trial court permissibly reconsidered its pretrial ruling and did not abuse discretion in concluding the video’s probative value (on intoxication/intent) outweighed unfair prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by conditioning UCrJI 1102 on admitting the previously excluded arrest video	State: court properly reconsidered admissibility because defendant’s request put intoxication/intent at issue; video probative of intoxication/decisionmaking	Gibson: request for the instruction should not trigger reopening exclusion; video not probative of intent two hours earlier and was unfairly prejudicial	Affirmed — court may revisit pretrial rulings; conditioning was permissible given new issue in trial and admissibility decision within discretion
Whether defendant’s statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights were violated (motion to dismiss)	State: denial proper (no reversible error)	Gibson: delay violated speedy-trial rights	Affirmed without additional discussion
Whether the trial court erred by denying motion to prevent victims from fleeing the state	State: denial proper	Gibson: court should have prevented victims from leaving	Affirmed without additional discussion

State v. Langley, 363 Or 482 (trial courts may revisit pretrial rulings when events at trial warrant)
State v. Foster, 296 Or 174 (ruling that hypothetical admission of evidence can be reversible error when it chills defense strategy)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (defendant sometimes forced to submit to adverse evidence to preserve claim on appeal)
State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298 (OEC 401 relevancy standard is low)
State v. Anderson, 363 Or 392 (appellate review of OEC 403 is abuse-of-discretion)
State v. Lipka, 289 Or App 829 (definition and assessment of unfair prejudice under OEC 403)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (factors for reversible error analysis)