This criminal action for second-degree manslaughter, ORS 163.125, and driving while under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, is before us again after being remanded for a new trial.
State v. Coen,
As discussed in greater length in
Coen I,
this case arose out of an automobile accident that resulted in the death of one driver and the hospitalization of the other driver — that is, defendant.
On appeal in
Coen I,
we held that certain statements defendant made to the trooper in the hospital should have been suppressed because they were made in “compelling circumstances” and were not preceded by
Miranda
warnings, in violation of Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution.
On remand, the state moved for a pretrial ruling on the admissibility of evidence that defendant participated in a diversion program for an incident occurring in 1992, and that defendant had been convicted of DUII in 1997. The state argued that both defendant’s participation in diversion and his prior DUII conviction were relevant to prove, with respect to the present charges, that he had acted with a reckless mental state — an element of the second-degree manslaughter charge. ORS 163.125(l)(a). 1 Specifically, the state argued that the evidence was relevant to prove that defendant had “knowledge of the risks involved in drinking and driving” at the time of the collision. The trial court ruled that evidence of defendant’s participation in diversion was admissible. However, after apparently conducting an OEC 403 balancing analysis — and notwithstanding the state’s contention that OEC 404(4) precluded such balancing — the court excluded evidence of defendant’s 1997 DUII conviction. 2
Defendant also filed a pretrial motion on remand to suppress the testimony that he had given at the first trial. Invoking
Harrison v. United States,
On appeal, the state first assigns error to the trial court’s exclusion of the DUII conviction, contending that OEC 404(4) precluded the trial court from engaging in balancing under OEC 403. 3 Defendant remonstrates that the trial court did not err in engaging in OEC 403 balancing because OEC 404(4) is facially unconstitutional as incompatible with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, defendant contends that (1) due process innately requires a reasoned balancing of the probative value verses the unfairly prejudicial potential effect of evidence of a criminal defendant’s prior bad acts and (2) OEC 404(4) creates a one-sided evidentiary scheme that deprives defendant of the protections afforded by OEC 403 that the prosecution enjoys. 4 Finally, and alternatively, defendant contends that, in all events, the DUII conviction is irrelevant. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state.
Contrary to what defendant argues, our case law clearly establishes that evidence of defendant’s prior DUII conviction is relevant to whether defendant had, as the state argues, “knowledge of the risks involved in drinking and driving” on the date of the accident.
See, e.g., State v. Wyant,
2. Defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of OEC 404(4) are equally unavailing. We have previously, albeit without extended or detailed treatment, rejected precisely the same contentions that defendant raises here.
See, e.g., State v. Berg,
The state also assigns error to the trial court’s suppression of defendant’s inculpatory testimony given at his first trial. At oral argument, the state acknowledged that, at least for purposes of our review, its argument is foreclosed by
Moore.
Order suppressing evidence of defendant’s driving under the influence of intoxicants conviction reversed; otherwise affirmed.
Notes
As pertinent here, ORS 163.125(1) provides, in part, that
“[cjriminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
“(a) It is committed recklessly[.]”
In turn, “recklessly,”
“when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.”
ORS 161.085(9).
The trial court did not explicitly refer to OEC 403. Rather, its written order on reconsideration states, “The court adheres to its prior order regarding inadmissibility of the defendant’s DUII conviction. Although the conviction may be relevant, it is clearly being offered to show defendant’s bad character or propensity since the defendant’s prior diversion is already coming in for state of mind.”
OEC 403 provides:
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
OEC 404(4) provides, in pertinent part:
“In criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant is admissible if relevant except as otherwise provided by:
“(a) [OEC 406 to 412] and, to the extent required by the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution, [OEC 403].”
As support for that proposition, defendant invokes
Wardius v. Oregon,