385 P.3d 1088
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant and complainant (DB) had three altercations in Sept–Oct 2013: Sept 13 (chair thrown), Sept 21 (hair-pulling, beating, threats), Oct 18 (blows with loppers threatened; defensive strike by DB).
- Defendant was charged for crimes arising from the Sept 21 and Oct 18 incidents; the Sept 13 incident was uncharged.
- The State sought to admit the Sept 13 episode as "other acts" evidence to prove motive under OEC 404(3).
- Defense moved to exclude that evidence and requested OEC 403 balancing; the trial court admitted the Sept 13 evidence without conducting a 403 balancing and gave a limiting instruction that it could be used only to show motive.
- Jury convicted defendant on multiple counts; on appeal defendant argued admitting the Sept 13 evidence without 403 balancing was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Sept 13 uncharged-act evidence | State: evidence was relevant non‑propensity proof of motive for Sept 21/Oct 18 assaults | Defendant: evidence was propensity evidence; trial court should have performed OEC 403 balancing and exclusion required | Court: Sept 13 evidence was relevant as non‑propensity motive evidence under OEC 404(3) but trial court erred by not conducting OEC 403 balancing on defendant’s timely request; error not harmless; reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 357 Or 1, 346 P3d 455 (Or. 2015) (OEC 404(4) supersedes 404(3) in criminal cases except as limited by constitutions; other‑acts use requires 403 balancing when unfair prejudice risk exists)
- State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364, 374 P3d 853 (Or. 2016) (if other‑acts evidence is relevant for nonpropensity purpose under OEC 404(3), court must perform OEC 403 balancing on proper motion)
- State v. Clarke, 279 Or App 373, 379 P3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (motive shown where prior act explains why defendant committed charged offense)
- State v. Altabef, 279 Or App 268, 379 P3d 755 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court erred by failing to balance probative value against prejudicial effect after defendant requested balancing)
- State v. Holt, 279 Or App 663, 381 P3d 897 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (same: error where trial court did not undertake OEC 403 balancing on request)
- State v. Goff, 258 Or App 757, 311 P3d 916 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (harmless‑error standard: reversal unnecessary only if error likely did not affect verdict)
- State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 77 P3d 1111 (Or. 2003) (harmless‑error doctrine guidance)