Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that evidence of the defendant's prior assaults against intimate partners was not admissible under OEC 404(3) to prove hostile motive because the state failed to establish a substantial connecting link between the prior and charged assaults. The court also held that the doctrine of chances did not apply because the defendant denied committing the charged assault rather than claiming that he acted accidentally. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and circuit court judgment and remanded for further proceedings, including potential consideration under OEC 404(4) and OEC 403.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether evidence of defendant's two prior assaults on intimate partners was admissible under OEC 404(3) to prove hostile motive.
- Whether the prior assaults were admissible under a doctrine-of-chances theory to prove that defendant intentionally assaulted the victim.
- Whether the Supreme Court could decide for the first time on review whether the evidence was admissible under OEC 404(4), subject to OEC 403 balancing.
Holdings
- Evidence of prior assaults against other intimate partners is not admissible to prove hostile motive merely because the prior victims and the charged victim belonged to the same general class. The state must establish that the prior acts were motivated by the victims' membership in that class and must show a substantial connecting link between the prior acts and the charged act.
- The doctrine of chances does not apply when the defendant denies committing the charged act altogether. It applies only when the defendant admits performing the act but claims that it was accidental, inadvertent, or otherwise lacking the requisite intent.
- The Supreme Court would not decide for the first time on review whether the prior-acts evidence was admissible under OEC 404(4) and OEC 403 when the state had not advanced that theory in the trial court. The issue was remanded for the trial court to address.
Key quotations
“When a party objects to the admission of other acts evidence, a trial court first should determine whether the proffered evidence is relevant for one or more nonpropensity purposes, under OEC 404(3).” (521)
“Thus, the admissibility of other-acts evidence under a "hostile motive" theory that does not involve the same victim requires proof that the motive for committing the other acts was that the other persons were members of the class to which the victim belongs.” (524)
“It is important to emphasize that the doctrine of chances applies only to explain whether or not an act that a defendant performed was performed intentionally.” (525)
Factual background
Defendant was charged with felony fourth-degree assault after his girlfriend reported that he repeatedly punched her, grabbed her by the throat, and threw her to the floor. By trial, the victim had recanted and testified that she had accidentally injured herself during a verbal argument. The state sought to introduce evidence of two prior assaults, one involving defendant's former wife in 1997 and another involving a former girlfriend in 2004, to show hostile motive and intentional conduct.
Procedural history
The trial court admitted evidence of two prior domestic-violence assaults under hostile-motive and intent theories pursuant to OEC 404(3), and defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reaching only the hostile-motive theory. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was not admissible for a nonpropensity purpose under OEC 404(3), declined to decide the state's unpreserved OEC 404(4) theory for the first time on review, reversed the appellate and circuit-court judgments, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The trial court must address whether the prior-acts evidence is admissible under OEC 404(4), including whether its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under OEC 403.