State v. Martin ( 2021 )

689
Argued and submitted December 30, 2020, affirmed November 17, 2021
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TROY WASKOVIAK MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Jefferson County Circuit Court
17CR37593; A170688
501 P3d 554
Annette C. Hillman, Judge.
L. Todd Wilson argued the cause and filed the brief for
appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
690 State v. Martin
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his judgment of conviction fol-
lowing a bench trial for stalking, ORS 163.732(2)(a); second-
degree criminal trespass, ORS 164.245; and second-degree
theft, ORS 164.045. On appeal, defendant raises two assign-
ments of error. As explained, neither supplies a basis for
reversal, so we affirm.
In defendant’s first assignment of error, he chal-
lenges the trial court’s admission of evidence of prior bad
acts occurring during his relationship with the victim. On
appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in
determining that the evidence was relevant for other non-
propensity purposes, and also that the court failed to prop-
erly balance the probative value of the evidence against
the danger of unfair prejudice under OEC 403. The court
ruled that the evidence was admissible under OEC 401 for
the nonpropensity reason “to show the context between the
two parties with respect to the mens rea * * * and potentially
identity,” and that, under OEC 403, the relevance of the evi-
dence was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair
prejudice.
We review a trial court’s determination of relevance
under OEC 401 for errors of law. State v. Titus, 328 Or 475,
481, 982 P2d 1133 (1999). In this instance, we understand
the court to have determined that the evidence in question
was relevant to the elements of stalking because it was
probative of the tumultuous nature of the parties’ relation-
ship. In particular, their relationship history was relevant
to prove the requisite mental states of defendant and the
victim: defendant’s knowledge that his conduct would alarm
the victim, ORS 163.732(1)(a); that it would be “objectively
reasonable for a person in the victim’s situation to have
been alarmed” by defendant’s conduct, ORS 163.732(1)(b);
and that the victim had a “reasonable apprehension regard-
ing the personal safety of the victim” or the members of her
immediate family or household, ORS 163.732(1)(c).
That conclusion—that evidence of the context of
the parties’ relationship is probative of the elements in a
stalking case—is in line with our case law. As we noted in
Brown v. Roach, 249 Or App 579, 587, 277 P3d 628 (2012), for
Cite as 315 Or App 689 (2021) 691
purposes of ORS 30.866—the civil analog to ORS 163.732—
“[t]he victim’s situation includes all of the circumstances of
the parties’ relationship.” Similarly, we explained in Boyd
v. Essin, 170 Or App 509, 518, 12 P3d 1003 (2000), rev den,
331 Or 674 (2001), that the factual context of the parties’
relationship is probative evidence in a stalking case. That is
because “contacts that might appear innocuous in isolation
often take on a different character when viewed either in
combination or against the backdrop of one party’s assaul-
tive behavior towards the other,” something that bears on the
reasonableness of the victim’s response to the defendant’s
conduct. Id. (emphasis added). In other words, as we have
recognized, the details of the relationship between two par-
ties can shed light on whether a defendant knew that par-
ticular conduct would alarm the victim, on what the victim’s
situation was, and on whether apprehension by the victim is
reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, the trial
court properly admitted the evidence for that purpose, one
that does not depend on propensity reasoning about defen-
dant’s character. Beyond that, we see no abuse of discretion
in the trial court’s OEC 403 balancing.1
In defendant’s second assignment of error, he con-
tends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to
preclude testimony by the state’s handwriting expert. He
argues that the state failed to lay sufficient foundation for its
admissibility. We reject that contention without discussion.
Affirmed.
1
Although the court noted that the evidence was “potentially” relevant to
identity under a nonpropensity theory during its pretrial ruling, we do not under-
stand it to have squarely ruled on the admissibility of the evidence to show iden-
tity at that time, and defendant did not object at trial when the state urged the
court to rely on the evidence for the purpose of finding identity. In any event, the
evidence did not likely affect the trial court’s assessment of identity. Multiple wit-
nesses identified defendant as the perpetrator during several different alleged
incidents that occurred on the victim’s property. That direct evidence was of
much greater probative value than any circumstantial evidence of “identity” pro-
vided by the prior bad acts which were not central to any theory of identity.