298 P.3d 652
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of first-degree sodomy and one count of first-degree sexual abuse.
- The conviction followed testimony by two young girls alleging sexual abuse by defendant.
- Over defense objection, the state admitted evidence that defendant had previously sexually abused other children and engaged in urine-related activities.
- One child was acquitted; charges related to the other child, J.F., resulted in three convictions and two acquittals.
- Defendant argues the prior-bad-acts evidence was inadmissible under OEC 404(3); the State contends any error was harmless.
- The trial court stated the urine-related evidence was unlikely to prejudice and relied on J.F.’s testimony for the verdict; other victims’ testimony played little role.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of prior bad acts was error. | State contends harmless error. | Ortega argues improper admission of prior acts. | Harmless error; affirmation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vargas-Samado, 223 Or App 15 (2008) (harmless-error standard in bench trials when evidence is unlikely to affect verdict)
- State v. Brooks, 247 Or App 676 (2012) (bencht trial harmless where trial court disclaims reliance on improper evidence)
- State v. Hunter, 141 Or App 73 (1996) (harmless error when court relied on other evidence)
- State v. Johns, 301 Or 535 (1986) (OEC 404(3) limits admission of prior crimes to non-character purposes)
- Leistiko, 352 Or 172 (2012) (prior bad acts not admissible to prove intent unless conditions met)