246 P.3d 506
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Shawn Michael Martin was convicted on two counts of second-degree assault under ORS 163.175 for commanding his dog to attack two teenage boys.
- The State introduced evidence of a prior incident where Martin, with the same dog, allegedly barked and jumped onto a woman in a restaurant parking lot after animal control took custody of the dog.
- The first incident occurred about one month before the charged attack and involved similar dog-control commands, some in Spanish.
- Martin admitted training the dog using Spanish commands but denied ordering an attack on the boys, suggesting the boys were attacking his camper while he was jailed.
- A trial court admitted the first dog-attack incident as evidence to show the dog’s propensities and Martin’s knowledge that the dog could be provoked, over Martin’s objection that it was impermissible character evidence under OEC 404(3).
- On appeal, Martin argued the evidence of the first incident was inadmissible under OEC 404(3); the court held the evidence was admissible to prove knowledge for a noncharacter purpose and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior incident under OEC 404(3) | State argues admissible for knowledge | Martin contends evidence is impermissible character evidence | Admissible for noncharacter purpose; knowledge established |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 313 Or. 189 (1992) (three-part test for admissibility under OEC 404(3))
- State v. Moore/Coen, 349 Or. 371 (2010) (OEC 404(4) precludes certain 403 balancing in criminal cases)
- State v. Phillips, 217 Or.App. 93 (2007) (context of 404 evidence admissibility in criminal cases)