State v. Leistiko
240 Or. App. 338
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and related charges in Oregon.
- State used testimony about an uncharged sexual misconduct against a different victim (SC) to rebut defense that victims consented.
- SC testified she advertised erotic services but would not engage in sex for money; defendant responded to her July 2007 advertisement and forcibly raped her.
- Trial court admitted SC's testimony to show defendant's method and to counter claims of consent; defendant preserved due process/403 objections.
- Court held uncharged misconduct evidence relevant under OEC 404(3) and not required to be highly similar; balancing under 403 not constitutionally mandated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged misconduct | Prosecution argues evidence shows defendant's method and lack of consent and is probative. | Evidence is insufficiently similar and prejudicial; should be excluded under Johns and 403 balancing. | Admissible under OEC 404(3); relevant to credibility and lack of consent. |
| Due process and 403 balancing | Due process does not require 403 balancing for this evidence. | Balancing is required under due process to assess prejudice. | No due process requirement to perform 403 balancing; errors not shown. |
| Johns test applicability | Johns framework supports admission of uncharged acts to prove lack of consent. | Differences between SC and charged victims undermine Johns analysis. | Johns analysis not strictly required; nevertheless evidence supports probative link to consent issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535 (1986) (multi-factor test for relevance of uncharged misconduct to intent)
- State v. Johnson, 340 Or. 319 (2006) (OEC 404(3) inclusion; probative value beyond character evidence)
- State v. Momeni, 234 Or. App. 193 (2010) (admission of prior acts to show victim's lack of consent; landlord-tenant context)
- State v. Wyant, 217 Or. App. 199 (2007) (due process does not require OEC 403 balancing)
- State v. Pitt, 236 Or. App. 657 (2010) (due process and balancing considerations in admissibility contexts)
- State v. Coen, 231 Or. App. 280 (2009) (due process considerations in evidentiary balancing)