State v. Champagne, 527 P.3d 1067

Champagne was tried for multiple sexual-offense counts (including first-degree rape and sodomy) against his granddaughter A and step‑granddaughter O, both under 12.
The state sought to admit testimony from B that Champagne had sexually abused her years earlier; the trial court allowed limited testimony about B’s prior abuse and gave a limiting instruction.
O’s mother testified without objection that she believed O to be truthful after O and A reported abuse; defense did not object at trial.
A jury convicted Champagne on all counts; at sentencing the court orally imposed 300 months (25 years) on four counts but the written judgment mistakenly stated 25 months.
The court later entered an amended judgment correcting the sentence without providing written notice to the parties as required by ORS 137.172(1).

Issue	State's Argument	Champagne's Argument	Held
Admissibility of B’s prior‑acts testimony	Evidence relevant as propensity evidence (OEC 404(4)) and necessary to counter expected defense expert and fabrication theory; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	Admission was improper because court failed to perform a separate OEC 403 balancing for propensity evidence and admission denied fair trial	Affirmed: admission permissible under OEC 404(4); court performed appropriate balancing and did not abuse discretion given limits on testimony and limiting instruction
Vouching by O’s mother	Testimony was brief and not objected to; did not create reversible error	Testimony amounted to impermissible vouching and court should have struck it sua sponte; plain error review warranted	No plain error; court did not err in failing to strike the testimony and appellate court declines to reverse on that basis
Amended judgment entered without written notice under ORS 137.172(1)	Any notice defect was harmless because amendment simply corrected a clerical error to reflect the statutorily required 25‑year sentences	Court lacked authority under ORS 137.172(1) to amend without written notice; amendment must be vacated/remanded	Court erred in failing to give statutorily required written notice, but error was harmless because the correction merely fixed a clerical error and the longer sentences were mandatory by law

State v. Williams, 357 Or 1 (2015) (propensity evidence of sexual interest may be relevant in child sex‑abuse prosecutions)
State v. Cave, 321 Or App 81 (2022) (distinguishes nonpropensity vs propensity evidence and requires proper OEC 403 balancing for propensity evidence)
State v. Powers, 323 Or App 553 (2023) (trial court may admit prior‑act evidence when it clearly understood distinct admissibility theories and performed balancing)
United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (prior‑act evidence can rebut defenses that complainants fabricated allegations)
State v. Riley, 195 Or App 377 (2004) (failure to give statutory notice to amend judgment may be harmless when amendment was required by law)
State v. Pryor, 310 Or App 403 (2021) (trial court must comply with statutory notice requirement when relying on ORS 137.172(1))
State v. Nobles, 264 Or App 580 (2014) (notice is an explicit prerequisite to exercising authority under predecessor statute to ORS 137.172(1))
State v. Whitlock, 187 Or App 265 (2003) (court reversed where defendant was not given opportunity to be heard on postjudgment modification without notice)
Daugharty v. Gladden, 217 Or 567 (1959) (common‑law authority allows courts to correct judgments when error is apparent on record and correction could not be successfully opposed)