State v. Beden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding 1 In the alternative, defendant argues (1) that D’s testimony was inadmis- sible under OEC 403 because the probative value of the evidence was substan- tially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and (2
• concluding 1 In the alternative, defendant argues (1) that D’s testimony was inadmis- sible under OEC 403 because the probative value of the evidence was substan- tially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and (2
• disclosure of those details might provide an improper basis for a juror to assess the credibility of a victim-witness or to decide the case
• disclosure of those details might provide an improper basis for a juror to assess the credibility of a victim—witness or to decide the case
• “Expert testimony is needed only when an average juror would be unable to understand the issues without expert assistance, not simply because a juror has not experienced the circumstances.” (Emphasis in original.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).