State v. Harris, 461 P.3d 1080

Defendant Joel Harris was charged with fourth-degree assault and unlawful use of a weapon after injuring his live-in girlfriend. He stipulated before trial that he had a prior fourth-degree assault conviction against the same victim, which converted the current offense to a felony; the State therefore agreed not to introduce evidence of that prior conviction.
During the victim’s emotional testimony, she said that defendant had "done that in the past," and elsewhere said she had told defendant’s employer there "had been a previous issue."
Defense immediately moved for a mistrial based on those references. The trial court struck the testimony and gave a curative instruction, denying the mistrial motion.
Defendant was convicted of two Class C felonies and sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment plus 24 months’ post-prison supervision (PPS) on each count, resulting in an aggregate term of 84 months.
On appeal defendant argued the trial court erred by denying a mistrial and by imposing a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum; the State conceded the sentencing error.

Issue	State's Argument	Harris's Argument	Held
Whether victim’s statement that defendant "had done that in the past" required a mistrial for violating the stipulation / injecting prior-acts evidence	Statement was ambiguous, did not assert a prior conviction or set of facts, and a curative instruction could cure any prejudice	The remark implied prior domestic violence/evidence of bad character in violation of the pretrial stipulation and was unfairly prejudicial	No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; statement ambiguous and curative instruction sufficient (jury presumed to follow instruction)
Whether victim’s comment to employer that there "had been a previous issue" required mistrial	Ambiguous and curable	Unfairly prejudicial and violated stipulation	Rejected as ambiguous; no reversible error
Whether imposing 24 months’ PPS in addition to 60 months’ imprisonment (total 84 months) exceeded the statutory maximum for Class C felonies	State concedes the combined term exceeded the 60‑month statutory maximum and that the sentence was plain error	Sentence violates statutory maximum; requires correction	Court accepts concession, treats as plain error, corrects by remanding for resentencing
Whether the trial court erred by refusing a unanimity instruction / entering convictions on a nonunanimous verdict	These claims are foreclosed by precedent	Error asserted on appeal	Rejected as foreclosed by State v. Bowen

State v. Brostrom, 214 Or App 604 (trial error to admit evidence of prior conviction after judicial admission)
State v. Serrano, 355 Or 172 (mistrial motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Woodall, 259 Or App 67 (curative instruction can cure prejudicial testimony in sex‑abuse context)
State v. Oxford, 302 Or App 407 (curative instruction appropriate for potentially prejudicial admissions)
State v. Williams, 276 Or App 688 (curative instruction sufficed to mitigate suggestive investigative comments)
State v. Garrison, 266 Or App 749 (curative instruction appropriate where jury heard about prior investigation)
State v. Evans, 281 Or App 771 (appellate correction/remand for sentences exceeding statutory maximum)
State v. Reyes, 301 Or App 841 (remand where imprisonment plus PPS exceeded statutory maximum)
State v. Bowen, 215 Or App 199 (claims about jury unanimity foreclosed)
State v. Moreno‑Hernandez, 365 Or 175 (procedural note on remand and unresolved sentencing/fines issues)