Opinion ID: 835865
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of Any Aggravating Evidence and Victim-Impact Evidence

Text: At the time of defendant's crimes in 1987, ORS 163.150(1)(a) (1985) required that any evidence introduced in a penalty-phase proceeding must be relevant to sentence. Former ORS 163.150(2) (1985), renumbered as ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A)-(C)(1987), in turn, set out three statutory questions for the jury's consideration: (a) Whether the conduct of the defendant that caused the death of the deceased was committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that death of the deceased or another would result; (b) Whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society   ; and (c) If raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased. [7] The state was required to prove affirmative answers to those questions beyond a reasonable doubt. See former ORS 163.150(3) (1985), renumbered as ORS 163.150(1)(d) (1989) (so providing). Further, defendant also was permitted to introduce general mitigating evidence that militated against imposition of the death penalty. See Wagner II, 309 Or. at 14, 786 P.2d 93 (mitigating evidence beyond scope of three statutory issues admissible under pre-1989 version of ORS 163.150(1)(a)). Before defendant's second penalty-phase proceeding, the 1989 Legislative Assembly enacted a fourth question, set out at ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D), encompassing general mitigating evidence that a defendant previously might have proffered under the reasoning set out in Wagner II, 309 Or. at 14, 786 P.2d 93. See 336 Or. at 453, 86 P.3d at 1122 (setting out ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D) (1989)). The 1991 Legislative Assembly subsequently amended that question, still in effect today, to ask a penalty-phase jury [w]hether the defendant should receive a death sentence. ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D); Or. Laws 1991, ch. 885, § 2. That fourth question, unlike the first three statutory questions set out in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A) to (C), is not subject to any burden of proof. See, e.g., State v. Fanus, 336 Or. 63, 70, 79 P.3d 847 (2003) (because fourth question frames discretionary determination for jury, it imposes no burden of proof). [8] Before defendant's third penalty-phase proceeding, the 1995 Legislative Assembly amended the death-penalty statutory scheme expressly to permit the introduction of relevant aggravating evidence and victim-impact evidence, adding the following text to ORS 163.150(1)(a): In the [penalty-phase] proceeding, evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence including, but not limited to, victim impact evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim or the impact of the crime on the victim's family and any aggravating or mitigating evidence relevant to the issue in paragraph (b)(D) of this subsection [.] [9] Or. Laws 1995, ch. 531, § 2 (emphasis added). The reference to paragraph (b)(D) of this subsection pertained to the fourth statutory question for the jury, discussed above. Two years later, the 1997 Legislative Assembly incorporated the 1995 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(a) into the jury instruction on the fourth question, by adding the following text to ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) (significant new text emphasized): The court shall instruct the jury to answer the question in paragraph (b)(D) of this subsection `no' if, after considering any aggravating evidence and any mitigating evidence concerning any aspect of the defendant's character or background, or any circumstances of the offense and any victim impact evidence as described in subsection (1)(a) of this section, one or more of the jurors believe that the defendant should not receive a death sentence. Or. Laws 1997, ch. 784, § 1 (emphasis added). In his third penalty-phase proceeding, defendant argued that retroactive application of the foregoing 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) violated the prohibitions against ex post facto laws contained in Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution and Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution. The trial court disagreed, and the state thereafter introduced evidence, discussed further below, falling within the parameters of the amendments. In any subsequent penalty-phase proceeding, the state is likely to offer the same or similar aggravating and victim-evidence against defendant, and defendant is likely to make the same objections. Accordingly, we address those objections here, beginning with defendant's state constitutional challenge to retroactive application of the any aggravating evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments. See, e.g., State v. Montez, 324 Or. 343, 363, 927 P.2d 64 (1996), cert. den., 520 U.S. 1233, 117 S.Ct. 1830, 137 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1997) (addressing defendant's state constitutional argument before addressing his federal constitutional argument).
As noted, at the time of his crimes in 1987, defendant was permitted under ORS 163.150(1)(a) (1985) to introduce general mitigating evidence that militated against imposition of the death penalty. Wagner II, 309 Or. at 14, 786 P.2d 93. Further, in Guzek II, this court concluded that, in enacting the 1989 version of ORS 163.150(1)(b)(D) (that is, the original fourth question), the legislature intended to submit to the jury the question whether any mitigating circumstances exist that would justify a sentence of life rather than death. 322 Or. at 263, 906 P.2d 272 (emphasis in original). By contrast, after the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B), the death-penalty statutory scheme now allows admission of any aggravating evidence under the fourth question. Defendant argues that the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) fundamentally altered the nature of the fourth question, by allowing the state to introduce new and different evidence than it was permitted to introduce at the time when defendant committed his crimes. Thus, defendant argues, retroactive application of the later-enacted amendments to his penalty-phase proceedings violates the ex post facto prohibition set out in Article I, section 21, see 336 Or. at 429 n. 5, 86 P.3d at 1109 n. 5 (setting out provision), which this court recently analyzed in State v. Fugate, 332 Or. 195, 210-15, 26 P.3d 802 (2001). The state responds, first, that the ex post facto prohibition of Article I, section 21, applies to only those changes in the rules of evidence that make conviction more likely. Therefore, the state contends, that prohibition does not apply to changes in the law concerning the admissibility of evidence in penalty-phase proceedings, because such proceedings are sentencing proceedings only. Alternatively, the state argues that the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) did not expand the range of aggravating evidence that could have been admitted in a penalty-phase proceeding at the time of defendant's crimes in 1987. It follows, the state argues, that retroactive application of the amendments to defendant's remanded penalty-phase proceeding does not amount to a state ex post facto violation. We begin with the discussion of Article I, section 21, that this court offered in Fugate. In that case, this court reiterated that Article I, section 21, prohibits the application of the types of laws that the framers of the Oregon Constitution understood to be prohibited by the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. 332 Or. at 214, 26 P.3d 802. Those laws fall into the four categories that Justice Chase identified in his opinion in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall) 386, 390-91, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798), quoted in Fugate, 332 Or. at 212, 26 P.3d 802:  `I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. All these and similar laws are manifestly unjust and oppressive.' (Emphasis in Fugate. ) In Fugate, this court explicitly held what it had implied in an earlier decision, State v. Cookman, 324 Or. 19, 31, 920 P.2d 1086 (1996), namely, that Article I, section 21, prohibited laws that fit within the fourth category of Calder, that is, laws that alter the rules of evidence in a one-sided way that makes conviction of the defendant more likely. Fugate, 332 Or. at 213, 26 P.3d 802. As noted above, the state first seeks to distinguish the any aggravating evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) from those laws that belong in Calder's fourth category by emphasizing that the death-penalty statutory scheme describes a proceeding for sentencing, not convicting, a defendant. Although we agree that penalty-phase proceedings are sentencing proceedings, we disagree that identifying them in that way exempts them from the prohibition described in Calder's fourth category, as explained below. First, we note that the categories described in Calder are general ones, used to summarize the types of ex post facto laws that the federal constitutional provision then prohibited. Justice Chase made that clear in his opinion by stating that the laws described in those categories and [ a]ll    similar laws are manifestly unjust and oppressive. 3 U.S. (3 Dall) at 390-91 (emphasis added). The question before us, then, is whether a change in the rules of evidence applicable to a penalty-phase proceeding that permits different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offen[s]e, id. at 390, to sentence a defendant to death is sufficiently similar to the laws described in Calder's fourth category to proscribe the application of that change in the law on ex post facto grounds. We turn to the proceedings under ORS 163.150. Although those proceedings concern what sentence a court must impose, they are otherwise similar to a criminal trial that results in a conviction. For example, the state is required to prove its case under the first three statutory questions set out in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A) to (C) beyond a reasonable doubt. See ORS 163.150(1)(d) (so stating). The decision whether the defendant may be sentenced to death is made by the jury, ORS 163.150(1)(a), and it must be unanimous, ORS 163.150(1)(e). Moreover, by contrast to other sentencing proceedings, the Oregon Evidence Code applies. OEC 101(4)(d). [10] In our view, those characteristics of a penalty-phase proceeding make it sufficiently similar to an ordinary trial, and its outcome sufficiently similar to a conviction, to consider changes in the rules of evidence that apply in such proceedings the same, for purposes of an ex post facto analysis, as changes in the rules of evidence that apply in guilt-phase proceedings of other kinds of trials. [11] Therefore, when a change in the law alters the rules of evidence in a one-sided way that makes a sentence of death more likely than it would have been at the time that a defendant committed aggravated murder, application of that law to the defendant offends the ex post facto prohibition of Article I, section 21, as explained in Fugate. Turning to the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) that provided for admission of any aggravating evidence, we agree with defendant that they amounted to one-sided changes, Fugate, 332 Or. at 213, 26 P.3d 802, that made a sentence of death more likely than it would have been before the changes. As noted above, at the time of defendant's crimes, the state's only express statutory avenue for introducing evidence against a defendant during a penalty-phase proceeding was in relation to the first three questions now set out at ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A) to (C). Specifically, the state could introduce evidence that was relevant to only the questions whether a defendant's conduct had been committed deliberately and with the reasonable expectation that death would result; whether a probability existed that the defendant would commit violent criminal acts constituting a continuing threat to society; and whether the defendant's conduct had been unreasonable in response to any provocation by the victim. Further, the state's evidence on the first three statutory questions was (and still is) subject to a burden of proof, in that the state was required to prove affirmative answers to those questions beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, by contrast, was permitted to introduce general mitigating evidence, subject to no burden of proof requirement, that supported imposition of a sentence other than death. After the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B), the state now has an additional express statutory avenue to introduce evidence against a defendant, because it now may introduce any aggravating evidence that is not relevant to the first three statutory questions and that pertains to a statutory question that is not subject to any burden of proof. That amounts to a one-sided change that benefits only the state and, effectively, makes a sentence of death more likely than it would have been before the change. Therefore, Article I, section 21, prohibits retroactive application of the any aggravating evidence provisions of ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) to defendant on remand, as discussed in Fugate. The state nonetheless argues that, because it was permitted at the time of defendant's crimes in 1987 to introduce a broad range of aggravating evidence under the first three statutory questions, it is difficult to hypothesize [any] aggravating evidence that, while admissible [under the amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(a) ] in 1995, would not have been admissible in 1987. The state continues that the scope of its aggravating evidence at the time of defendant's crimes went beyond the first three statutory questions because the state permissibly could have introduced aggravating evidence to controvert any mitigating evidence that defendant offered in his behalf. Finally, the state emphasizes that, under the 1995 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(a), any evidence offered in aggravation still must be relevant to sentence. In the state's view, given the broad scope of its potential evidence at the time of defendant's crimes in 1987, coupled with the continued requirement that its evidence be relevant to the sentencing determination, it is highly unlikely that any relevant aggravating evidence against defendant would have been subject to exclusion in 1987. Although we agree with the state that, at the time of defendant's crimes in 1987, it was permitted to introduce a broad range of aggravating evidence, we disagree that the 1995 and 1997 amendments essentially effected no change to the state's ability to introduce aggravating evidence against defendant at a remanded penalty-phase proceeding. As explained above, the state now may introduce any aggravating evidence that is not relevant to the first three statutory questions and that pertains to a statutory question that is not subject to any burden of proof; further, such evidence is not limited to rebutting any particular mitigating evidence offered by a defendant. Stated differently, the 1995 and 1997 amendments had the effect of removing two limitations on the state's evidence that heretofore ran in a defendant's favor, that is, the requirements that all evidence introduced against the defendant (and therefore supporting imposition of the death penalty) would (1) be limited in its relevance either to the first three statutory questions or to rebut any particular mitigating evidence that the defendant proffered; and (2) respecting the first three statutory questions, ultimately implicate the highest possible burden of proof. Such a change in the law undoubtedly qualifies as a one-sided change that makes imposition of a sentence of death more likely, retroactive application of which would contravene Article I, section 21. In sum, we conclude that, in defendant's remanded penalty-phase proceeding, the trial court is precluded from retroactively applying the any aggravating evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B). Any determination of the relevance of the state's aggravating evidence against defendant therefore must be in relation to the first three statutory questions set out in ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A) to (C) or in relation to rebuttal of any particular mitigating evidence offered by defendant. [12]
As discussed above, in addition to adding a provision allowing for any aggravating evidence, the 1995 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(a) also provided for the admission of victim impact evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim or the impact of the crime on the victim's family. See 336 Or. at 432, 86 P.3d at 1111 (quoting Or. Laws 1995, ch. 531, § 2). The 1997 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B) similarly required that the jury consider, as part of its consideration of the fourth question, any victim impact evidence as described in subsection (1)(a) of this section. See 336 Or. at 432, 86 P.3d at 1111 (quoting Or. Laws 1997, ch. 784, § 1). In defendant's third penalty-phase proceeding, the state introduced evidence of the victims' personal characteristics and of the impact that their murders had on their two daughters, on their niece and nephew, and on Rod Houser's brother. Defendant objected to the state's victim-impact evidence, arguing that, like the any aggravating evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B), retroactive application of the victim-impact evidence provisions violated the state and federal constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. The trial court disagreed, and the jury considered the evidence. On review, defendant renews both his state and federal challenges, which we discuss in turn below.
As defendant points out, under the 1989 version of the death-penalty statutory scheme in place at the time of his second penalty-phase proceeding (and, indisputably, under the 1985 version of that statute in place at the time of his crimes in 1987), the admission of victim-impact evidence constituted reversible error. Guzek II, 322 Or. at 270, 906 P.2d 272. Defendant argues that, accordingly, the victim-impact evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) constituted one-sided changes in the law that now allow the state to introduce different evidence than it was permitted to introduce at the time when defendant committed his crimes. As with his challenge to the any aggravating evidence provision, defendant argues that retroactive application of those provisions violates the ex post facto prohibition of Article I, section 21, under Fugate. The state counters that the state constitutional ex post facto prohibition does not proscribe retroactive application of the victim-impact evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) because those changes in the law were not one-sided. That is so, the state argues, because a defendant also conceivably could benefit from the introduction of victim-impact evidence. Alternatively, the state argues that, even if Article I, section 21, formerly proscribed the admission of victim-impact evidence against defendant, that proscription will not apply on remand because it has been superseded by Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution, which, among other things, confers on victims the right    to be heard at sentencing in criminal proceedings. We need not resolve the parties' dispute as to whether retroactive application of the victim-impact evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) would violate the state constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. As explained below, even if defendant's state ex post facto analysis were correct, we agree with the state that a victim's right    to be heard under Article I, section 42(1)(a), of the Oregon Constitution supersedes any Article I, section 21, protection applicable to defendant, as explained below. The voters adopted what is now Article I, section 42, of the Oregon Constitution as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in 1999. Among other things, that amendment provided that crime victims have [t]he right    to be heard at    the sentencing    disposition[.] Or. Const., Art I, § 42(1)(a). The amendment further provided that the rights set out therein applied to all criminal proceedings pending or commenced on or after the effective date of the amendment, that is, December 2, 1999. Or. Const., Art I, § 42(2). The state's argument that, on remand, Article I, section 42(1)(a) will require admission of relevant victim-impact evidence against defendant presents a two-part question. First, we must determine whether the state's offering of the type of victim-impact evidence that the 1995 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(a) describes, that is, evidence relating to the personal characteristics of the victim or the impact of the crime on the victim's family, qualifies as a victim's right    to be heard under Article I, section 42(1)(a). Because we conclude that it does, and because, by its terms, Article I, section 42, will apply to any subsequent penalty-phase proceeding in this case, we must address a second question: Whether the victims' right to be heard requires the trial court on remand to admit relevant victim-impact evidence against defendant despite any protection against ex post facto laws that Article I, section 21, might afford him. We begin with the text of Article I, section 42. See Shilo Inn v. Multnomah County, 333 Or. 101, 116-17, 36 P.3d 954 (2001), modified on recons. on other grounds, 334 Or. 11, 45 P.3d 107 (2002) (when interpreting referred constitutional provision, court's task is to discern intent of voters; best evidence of voters' intent is text of provision). It provides, in part: (1) To preserve and protect the right of crime victims to justice, to ensure crime victims a meaningful role in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, to accord crime victims due dignity and respect and to ensure that criminal and juvenile court delinquency proceedings are conducted to seek the truth as to the defendant's innocence or guilt, and also to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants in the course and conduct of criminal and juvenile court delinquency proceedings, the following rights are hereby granted to victims in all prosecutions for crimes and in juvenile court delinquency proceedings: (a) The right to be present at and, upon specific request, to be informed in advance of any critical stage of the proceedings held in open court when the defendant will be present, and to be heard at the pretrial release hearing and the sentencing or juvenile court delinquency disposition;      (2) This section applies to all criminal and juvenile court delinquency proceedings pending or commenced on or after the effective date of this section. Nothing in this section reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States. Except as otherwise specifically provided, this section supersedes any conflicting section of this Constitution.    (3) As used in this section:      (c) `Victim' means any person determined by the prosecuting attorney to have suffered direct financial, psychological or physical harm as a result of a crime and, in the case of a victim who is a minor, the legal guardian of the minor. In the event that no person has been determined to be a victim of the crime, the people of Oregon, represented by the prosecuting attorney, are considered to be the victims.     (Emphasis added.) The text of Article I, section 42, permits us to answer the first question quickly. Article I, section 42(1)(a), confers the right    to be heard on those persons that the state deems to have suffered harm as a result of a crime (defined in section (3)(c) as [v]ictim[s]). We need not consider the full breadth of that right to conclude that it generally encompasses the more narrowly defined victim-impact evidence described in the 1995 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and, relatedly, in the 1997 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B). The right of a murder victim's family member (who also can qualify as a victim under Article I, section 42) to be heard in a penalty-phase proceeding means, at a minimum, the right to offer relevant evidence of the murder victim's personal characteristics and of the impact of the crime upon the murder victim's family. In the context of a capital penalty-phase proceeding, the state's ability to offer victim-impact evidence under ORS 163.150(1)(a) ordinarily will serve as the mechanism for a victim's exercise of that right. Because, as noted above, Article I, section 42, applies to all criminal    proceedings pending or commenced on or after December 2, 1999, it follows that the Housers' family members will have the right in any subsequent penalty-phase proceeding in this case to offer evidence of the Housers' personal characteristics and of the impact of the crimes on their family. That conclusion conflicts with defendant's contention that Article I, section 21, insulates him from the introduction of victim-impact evidence through its prohibition against ex post facto laws. Accordingly, assuming, without deciding, that defendant is correct respecting the applicability of Article I, section 21, we must determine which right will govern the question of the admissibility of victim-impact evidence in any further proceeding in this case: the victims' right to be heard or defendant's right to be free from application of an ex post facto law. To answer that question, we again turn to the text of the Article I, section 42. Article I, section 42(2), provides, in part: Nothing in this section reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States. Except as otherwise specifically provided, this section supersedes any conflicting section of this Constitution. By providing that Article I, section 42, does not reduce[ ] a defendant's federal constitutional rights and that it supersedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution, that text anticipates that the victim's right to be heard might be incompatible with a criminal defendant's constitutional right in a particular case. At the same time, the text establishes that the voters intended the anticipated conflict to be resolved in one of two ways, depending on the source of the criminal defendant's conflicting right. According to the first of the two sentences quoted above, the voters made clear that they did not intend to attempt to change any right previously guaranteed to a criminal defendant under the United States Constitution. Accordingly, in the event of a conflict between a victim's right to be heard and a criminal defendant's federal constitutional right, it is the victim's right to be heard that must give way. [13] By contrast to that deference to federal constitutional law, Article I, section 42, provides that it will supersede any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. Read in context, that statement makes clear that, in the event of a conflict between a victim's right to be heard under Article I, section 42(1)(a), and a criminal defendant's right under the Oregon Constitution, it is the victim's right that has constitutional priority. Applying the foregoing understanding of Article I, section 42, to this case, we conclude the following. In a subsequent death-penalty proceeding in this case, the Housers' family members will have the right under Article I, section 42(1)(a), to offer relevant victim-impact evidence as described in the 1995 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and later included in the 1997 amendment to ORS 163.150(1)(c)(B). Although retroactive application of those amendments to defendant might implicate the ex post facto prohibition under Article I, section 21, defendant's right to be free from retroactive application of the amendments is superseded in this context by the right conferred on the Housers' family members under Article I, section 42(1)(a).
Defendant also argues that retroactive application of the victim-impact evidence provisions of the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) to his remanded penalty-phase proceeding violates the prohibition of ex post facto laws set out in Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution. See 336 Or. at 429 n. 5, 86 P.3d at 1109 n. 5 (setting out provision). The state counters that, according to the analysis that the United States Supreme Court set out in Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 120 S.Ct. 1620, 146 L.Ed.2d 577 (2000), it does not. For the reasons set out below, we agree with the state's ex post facto analysis under federal law. When interpreting the prohibition against ex post facto laws set out in Article I, section 10, of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court relies on Calder's categories. The Court, like this one, has held that alterations to the rules of evidence in a manner that makes conviction more likely fall into the fourth category of laws under Calder that violate ex post facto principles. Carmell, 529 U.S. at 522-25, 120 S.Ct. 1620. [14] However, the Court has offered a specific interpretation, as a matter of federal constitutional law, of the kind of change in the rules of evidence that facilitates an easier conviction. Under Article I, section 10, as the Court explained in Carmell, a change in the rules of evidence that facilitates an easier convictionlike changes in the law relating to Calder's first three categoriesis one that subverts the presumption of innocence. [15] Id. at 532, 120 S.Ct. 1620. Specifically, the evidentiary change must be one that alters the sufficiency-of-evidence standard or otherwise reduc[es] the quantum of evidence necessary to meet the burden of proof to convict. Id. at 532-33, 120 S.Ct. 1620. Applying that standard to a penalty-phase proceeding, we construe it as a standard that focuses on whether the change in the law lowers the minimum quantum of evidence required to obtain a sentence of death. With that standard in mind, we again turn to the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) that permit the admission of victim-impact evidence. We agree with the state that nothing about those amendments lowers the quantum of proof necessary for the state to obtain a sentence of death. The state must prove each issue submitted to the jury under ORS 163.150(1)(b)(A) to (C) beyond a reasonable doubt, ORS 163.150(1)(d), just as Oregon law previously required it to do. Although the retroactive application of a change in the law that permits the state to introduce a new kind of evidence against a defendant might tip the balance in favor of the state, it does not unfair[ly] tip it, Carmell, 529 U.S. at 533 n. 23, 120 S.Ct. 1620, for purposes of the federal Ex Post Facto Clause, as does a change in the law that reduces the sufficiency of the evidence standard. That distinction is dispositive. As the Supreme Court explained in Carmell, not every rule that increases the state's likelihood of success on the merits constitutes an ex post facto law under Article I, section 10. For example, the Court observed that rules that permit evidence to be admitted at trial, whether one-sided or not,     do not at all subvert the presumption of innocence, because they do not concern whether the admissible evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption. Therefore, to the extent one may consider changes to such laws as `unfair' or `unjust,' they do not implicate the same kind of unfairness implicated by changes in rules setting forth a sufficiency of the evidence standard. Id. (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the admission of victim-impact evidence against defendant under the 1995 and 1997 amendments to ORS 163.150(1)(a) and (c)(B) does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.