State v. Cave, 516 P.3d 279

Defendant Jack Allen Cave was convicted of multiple sex crimes against two granddaughters (rape, sexual abuse, sodomy).
On first appeal this court reversed because the trial court admitted testimony from defendant’s adult daughter (J) that he had sexually abused her as a child; this testimony was initially admitted under OEC 404(3).
On remand the trial court again admitted J’s testimony as non-propensity evidence under OEC 404(3) (to show defendant’s "sexual purpose" when touching victims and to impeach testimony about his propriety around children) and declined to analyze OEC 404(4).
The state later conceded that its theories for admitting J’s testimony depended on propensity reasoning and thus were not proper OEC 404(3) grounds.
The Court of Appeals holds the trial court erred in admitting the testimony under OEC 404(3), and that the OEC 403 balancing was infected by that error; the case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to consider admissibility under OEC 404(4) and then OEC 403.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of J's testimony under OEC 404(3) (non‑propensity)	Evidence of prior abuse shows defendant's sexual purpose toward children and impeaches testimony of propriety; thus admissible as non‑propensity 404(3) evidence.	Prior‑acts testimony is being used to show character/propensity and is therefore not a proper 404(3) basis.	Error to admit under OEC 404(3); state conceded the theories relied on propensity reasoning. Evidence, if admissible, must be considered under OEC 404(4).
Whether the trial court's OEC 403 balancing can be upheld despite mislabeling as 404(3)	Mislabeling is harmless because the court understood the evidence showed sexual purpose and assigned it high probative value.	The mislabeling affected the 403 analysis; trial court did not address the special prejudices of propensity evidence.	The 403 balancing was affected by the error and cannot be upheld; remand required for proper 404(4)/403 analysis.

State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386 (explains Baughman sequence: 404(3) first, then 403; if not 404(3), analyze 404(4) then 403)
State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464 (articulates prohibition on propensity evidence and due process concerns)
State v. Williams, 357 Or 1 (addresses use of other‑acts evidence in child sex abuse cases under OEC 404(4))
State v. Nolen, 319 Or App 703 (clarifies that "sexual purpose" theories that require character‑inference are not 404(3) non‑propensity)
State v. Levasseur, 309 Or App 745 (similar limitation on 404(3) where theory reduces to character inference)
State v. Holt, 292 Or App 826 (failure to conduct proper 403 balancing is not harmless where either outcome was permissible)
State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (harmless‑error analysis considers centrality of witness credibility to verdict)
State v. Cave, 298 Or App 30 (prior Court of Appeals opinion reversing initial admission and directing Baughman analysis)