State v. Williams

357 Or. 1 (2015) · Supreme Court of Oregon · March 18, 2015 · No. CC 08CR0707; CA A145644; SC S061769

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that, in criminal cases, Oregon Evidence Code 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3) and permits relevant evidence of a defendant’s other crimes, wrongs, or acts, subject to specified exceptions. In child-sexual-abuse prosecutions, due process requires the trial court to balance the evidence’s probative value against unfair prejudice under OEC 403. The court concluded that evidence of the defendant’s possession of children’s underwear was logically relevant and properly admitted, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded for consideration of the remaining assignments of error.

Holdings

  1. In criminal cases, OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3), making relevant evidence of a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts admissible for all purposes, including propensity, except as limited by the state or federal constitutions or expressly applicable statutory and evidentiary provisions.
  2. In a prosecution for child sexual abuse, the Due Process Clause requires the trial court, upon objection, to determine under OEC 403 whether the risk of unfair prejudice from other-acts evidence outweighs its probative value.
  3. The underwear evidence was logically relevant under OEC 401 because it had a tendency to increase the probability that defendant acted with a sexual purpose when committing the charged touching.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3) in criminal cases and permits admission of relevant evidence of a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes including propensity, subject to constitutional and express statutory limitations.
  2. Whether the Due Process Clause requires a trial court in a child-sexual-abuse prosecution to balance the probative value of other-acts evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice under OEC 403.
  3. Whether the children's-underwear evidence was logically relevant under OEC 401 to prove that defendant acted with the sexual purpose required for first-degree sexual abuse.
  4. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the underwear evidence under OEC 401, OEC 404(4), and OEC 403.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (24)

  • State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535, 549-50, 725 P.2d 312 (1986)(discussed)
  • State v. Pinnell, 311 Or. 98, 105-07, 112-13, 806 P.2d 110 (1991)(followed)
  • State v. Shaw, 338 Or. 586, 613-15, 113 P.3d 898 (2005)(followed)
  • Carlson v. Myers, 327 Or. 213, 235, 959 P.2d 31 (1998)(followed)
  • Smith v. Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, 318 Or. 302, 309, 865 P.2d 356 (1994)(followed)
  • Armatta v. Kitzhaber, 327 Or. 250, 252, 254, 959 P.2d 49 (1998)(discussed)
  • State v. Fugate, 332 Or. 195, 199, 26 P.3d 802 (2001)(discussed)
  • State v. Lotches, 331 Or. 455, 494 n.20, 17 P.3d 1045 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 833 (2001)(distinguished)
  • State v. Moore/Coen, 349 Or. 371, 389, 245 P.3d 101 (2010)(followed in part)
  • State v. Leistiko, 352 Or. 172, 180 n.6, 282 P.3d 857 (2012)(discussed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…