State v. Middleton, 300 P.3d 228

Background

Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape in the third degree, five counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, and one count of unlawful delivery of marijuana, based on conduct with two minor victims over several days.
On appeal, defendant raised nine assignments of error, including four motions for mistrial alleging prejudicial, uncharged-conduct references by prosecutors and witnesses.
During trial, the prosecutor and witnesses referenced defendant’s alleged history of sex offenses, which the court had previously ruled inadmissible for impeachment unless defendant testified.
The trial court sustained some objections, struck certain statements, gave curative instructions, and denied mistrial requests; in one instance it allowed testimony that prosecutors argued was independently relevant to victims’ ages and elements of the charged offenses.
The court eventually affirmed most evidentiary rulings, concluding none of the individual statements or their cumulation, considered with proper instructions, denied the defendant a fair trial.
The opinion also discusses nonunanimous verdicts on a count and a curative instruction, and it notes Stamper’s pending issue before the Oregon Supreme Court at the time.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether multiple improper statements require a mistrial	State contends cumulative prejudice necessitates mistrial.	Defendant claims the statements, even if individually curable, cumulatively denied a fair trial.	Mistrial not required; no abuse of discretion; curative instructions sufficed.
Whether the prosecutor’s opening statement and witness testimony improperly suggested prior sex-offense conduct	Prosecutor’s statements implied a sex-offender history (curable by instruction).	Such references biased the jury toward guilt by propensity evidence.	Not reversible error; instructions cured prejudice.
Whether Johnson and Brown testimony, and related strike-and-instruction actions, violated admissibility rules	Testimony could reveal defendant’s criminal history and its relevance to offenses.	Cumulative effect of references to prior sex offenses required mistrial.	No reversible error; trial court’s strikes and instructions were adequate.
Whether the final witness testimony about acknowledging a problem warranted mistrial under 403	Testimony had probative value and aided the State’s case.	Testimony was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded.	Not basis for mistrial; evidence deemed not unduly prejudicial per 403, preserved error not shown.
Whether the court properly denied challenges to nonunanimous verdicts and preserved constitutional objections	Nonunanimous verdicts were improper and reversible.	Nonunanimous verdicts violated constitutional requirements.	Standard district case law upheld nonunanimous verdicts; affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Farrar, 309 Or 132 (1990) (mistrial standard; abuse of discretion reviewed for fair trial effect)
State v. Simonsen, 329 Or 288 (1999) (mistrial and prejudice; discretion in denial of mistrial)
State v. Bowen, 340 Or 487 (2006) (standard for determining prejudice and curative instructions)
State v. Jones, 279 Or 55 (1977) (pervasive prejudice from improper evidence and fair trial impact)
State v. Compton, 333 Or 274 (2002) (curative instructions and preservation of fairness in trial)