Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court in a criminal case involving the admission of prior uncharged sexual misconduct evidence. The court held that the evidence was not admissible to bolster the victim's identification of the defendant because that rationale relied on an impermissible propensity inference. The court also addressed the relevance of prior-act evidence offered to prove intent or absence of mistake when the defendant does not concede that the charged act occurred.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether prior uncharged sexual misconduct involving the same victim and another child was admissible under OEC 404(3) to bolster the victim's identification of defendant.
- Whether the prior uncharged misconduct was relevant to prove intent or absence of mistake or accident before the record contained evidence sufficient to establish that defendant committed the charged acts.
- Whether defendant preserved his challenge to the pretrial motion in limine despite not renewing the objection during trial.
- Whether the erroneous admission of the prior-misconduct evidence was harmless.
Holdings
- Prior uncharged misconduct evidence may not be admitted under OEC 404(3) merely to bolster a victim's identification when the reasoning depends on an impermissible inference that defendant acted consistently with a propensity to sexually abuse children. The traditional identity exception requires a distinctive or signature method of committing the acts, and the misconduct here did not satisfy that requirement.
- When a defendant has not stipulated that he committed the charged act, prior misconduct offered to prove intent or absence of mistake is not relevant unless the state first introduces evidence sufficient to permit the factfinder to find that the charged act occurred and the jury is instructed to make that finding before considering the prior misconduct for intent.
- A defendant preserves for appellate review a challenge to the denial of a motion in limine when the motion provided a sufficient offer of proof and the trial court made a final ruling, even if the defendant does not renew the objection during trial.
- The erroneous admission of prior uncharged misconduct was not harmless because the ruling permitted the jury to consider the evidence before deciding whether the charged abuse occurred, creating a substantial risk that the jury used the evidence for an impermissible propensity purpose.
Key quotations
“bolstering A's identification of defendant with defendant's prior uncharged conduct against A and R constituted an impermissible propensity purpose under these circumstances, because the reasoning relies on an impermissible character inference about defendant.” (at 582)
“In the absence of a stipulation by the defendant, unless the state first introduces evidence sufficient to allow the jury to find that the charged act occurred, a court cannot properly admit the uncharged misconduct evidence as relevant to prove intent.” (at 586)
“The court's evidentiary ruling permitted the jury to consider the uncharged misconduct evidence before it decided whether defendant had committed the charged acts.” (at 589)
Factual background
Pitt was charged with sexually abusing A, the four-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, in Clatsop County. Before trial, the state sought to introduce evidence that Pitt had previously sexually abused A and another four-year-old child, R, in Lane County. Pitt denied committing the charged acts and argued that, if abuse occurred, someone else may have committed it. The trial court admitted the prior-misconduct evidence, and the jury convicted Pitt on all four counts.
Procedural history
Pitt was convicted of two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse. His initial convictions were reversed and remanded for retrial because of a Confrontation Clause violation. On retrial, the circuit court denied his motion in limine and admitted evidence of prior uncharged misconduct involving the victim and another child; the jury convicted him again, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed both the Court of Appeals and the circuit court and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.