State v. Hagner, 395 P.3d 58

Background

Defendant shot and killed his wife; charged with murder and felon in possession of a firearm; pleaded guilty to the possession count, tried and convicted of murder by jury.
State sought to admit two prior domestic incidents occurring one week and four days before the shooting: (1) neighbor Anderson heard defendant angrily yelling after being locked out, and (2) daughter Courtney heard a slap and the victim say, “You slapped me.”
Defendant conceded he fired the shot but claimed it was accidental; moved pretrial to exclude the prior-acts evidence under OEC 404(3) as impermissible propensity evidence.
Trial court admitted the prior-acts testimony to show hostile motive and intent; defendant did not request OEC 403 balancing at trial; jury returned murder conviction.
On appeal defendant argued the evidence was only probative of propensity and that the Johns multifactor test should apply; he also argued the court failed to balance probative value against prejudice under OEC 403.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior domestic incidents under OEC 404(3) to prove motive/intent	State: incidents show hostile motive toward victim, which is probative of intentional killing	Defendant: evidence only shows propensity to be abusive and is not relevant to specific intent for this shooting	Admissible: court held incidents were relevant to hostile motive and therefore to intent and properly admitted under OEC 404(3)
Applicability of Johns/doctrine-of-chances test	State: Johns not required when evidence is offered to prove hostile motive rather than to establish absence of mistake via doctrine of chances	Defendant: because evidence was used to rebut accident theory, Johns must apply and was not satisfied	Johns not required: court followed Turnidge and held Johns applies to doctrine-of-chances uses only; hostile-motive theory does not require Johns analysis
Sufficiency of nexus between prior acts and charged crime (temporal/connecting link)	State: two hostile incidents in the week before the killing provide a substantial connecting link making persistent hostility likely	Defendant: prior acts are not similar enough to show motive to shoot rather than mere domestic disputes	Nexus sufficient: temporal proximity (4 days and 1 week) and multiple incidents supported inference that hostility persisted and could have motivated the shooting
OEC 403 balancing (prejudicial effect vs probative value)	State: balancing was not sought by defendant so no error in omission	Defendant: court erred by not balancing under OEC 403	Not preserved: defendant never requested 403 balancing at pretrial or trial; omission is not plain error; claim forfeited

Key Cases Cited

State v. Moen, 309 Or 45 (discusses use of prior acts to show hostile motive and mens rea)
State v. Johns, 301 Or 535 (articulates multifactor test for doctrine-of-chances prior-acts analysis)
State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364 (clarifies Johns applies to doctrine-of-chances theory only; hostile-motive evidence need not meet Johns)
State v. Davis, 156 Or App 117 (applied Johns to hostile-motive evidence; court here explains portions are no longer good law post-Turnidge)
State v. Clarke, 279 Or App 373 (prior threats proximate to killing can show animosity that supports intentionality)
State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160 (evaluates prior-acts relevance and connecting link inquiry)
State v. Salas-Juarez, 349 Or 419 (temporal proximity can support inference of ongoing angry state of mind)
State v. Teitsworth, 257 Or App 309 (prior domestic violence admissible to rebut self-defense by showing hostile motive)