State v. Davis, 553 P.3d 1017

Defendant Thomas Alan Davis, Jr. was prosecuted in Oregon for attacking a female jogger; he tackled her from behind, knocked her unconscious, and dragged her into a ditch. DNA evidence linked Davis to the attack.
Davis was charged with first-degree kidnapping, fourth-degree assault, and attempted first-degree sexual abuse; the latter required proof of intent to sexually assault the victim.
The prosecution lacked direct evidence of sexual intent, so it introduced evidence that Davis had written and left sexually explicit, violent notes on the cars of two other female strangers in public places in the weeks leading up to the attack.
The trial court admitted the redacted notes as evidence of intent, gave limiting instructions, and Davis was convicted on all counts.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the notes were inadmissible character evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value; after remand and further rulings, the case returned to the Oregon Supreme Court for review of the admissibility of the notes under Oregon's evidence rules (OEC 404(4) and OEC 403).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the notes are admissible under OEC 404(4) and OEC 403	The notes show Davis' intent, not just character; admissible	Relevance depends on improper character/propensity inference	Admitting the notes was within trial court's discretion under OEC 403
Whether evidence primarily reliant on character can ever be admitted under OEC 404(4) & OEC 403	Character evidence can be admitted if probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice	Such evidence should be categorically excluded or is unfairly prejudicial	As long as character inferences are not primary/substantial, evidence is admissible
Application of due process to admission of character/propensity evidence	OEC 403 process protects due process; no categorical bar	If only propensity is proved, due process prohibits admission	Due process not addressed—argument unpreserved at trial
Whether trial court abused discretion in OEC 403 balancing	Trial court mitigated prejudice; notes' probative value high	Prejudice from inflammatory notes was overwhelming	No abuse of discretion—the limiting/redaction mitigated unfair prejudice

State v. Williams, 357 Or 1 (explained OEC 404(4) supersedes 404(3) in criminal cases; OEC 403 balancing required for admission of character evidence)
State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386 (provided framework for OEC 403 balancing regarding other acts evidence and explained the "spectrum" for admissibility)
State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586 (unfair prejudice defined as improper appeal to emotions, not mere harm to defense)