State v. SALAS-JUAREZ, 245 P.3d 113

In the early hours of Aug. 13, 2006, defendant and Russell fought a group in Medford; Lunsford was fatally stabbed.
Witnesses showed Russell had a knife and instigated the confrontation; defendant helped instigate but denies stabbing.
Police tried to identify Russell; Russell later told officers he had a knife and may have stabbed someone.
Band members later testified about Russell’s mood at the club before the fight; the bartender’s son incident was not testified to.
Defendant sought to admit Russell’s prior statement that he wanted to slash the bartender’s son as relevant to Russell’s motive; the trial court excluded it.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; this court reversed and remanded for new proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russell’s ‘slash’ statement was relevant under OEC 401/404(3).	Salas-Juarez argues the statement shows Russell’s motive/angry state.	Salas-Juarez contends it is admissible to prove motive/intent under 404(3).	Yes; the statement was relevant and admissible under 404(3).
Whether exclusion of the statement was harmless error.	The exclusion deprived jury of critical motive evidence.	Other evidence pointed to Russell as instigator; exclusion not prejudicial.	No; exclusion was not harmless given the reasonable doubt standard.
Whether the statement was admissible to impeach Stewart and Vissar under OEC 613.	Defense sought to use the statement to impeach witnesses.	Impeachment with prior inconsistent or related statements allowed.	Court did not need to decide due to other admissibility ruling; preserved arguments limited.

State v. Barone, 329 Or. 210 (1999) (low threshold for relevance; evidence need only make a fact more probable)
State v. Hampton, 317 Or. 251 (1993) (relevance is broad; inference from evidence allowed)
State v. Hayward, 327 Or. 397 (1998) (assumes act-like nature for Rule 404(3) analysis)