State v. Moles, 435 P.3d 782

Defendant was charged with six counts of first-degree sexual abuse of D (a child under 14) and one count of sodomy; jury convicted on the six sexual-abuse counts.
The State sought to admit evidence that, ~20 years earlier, defendant sexually abused D's mother when she was ~10–15, to prove relevance to the charged conduct.
Defendant moved in limine to exclude that uncharged-misconduct evidence under OEC 403, arguing Williams and that the evidence was impermissible propensity proof or unduly prejudicial.
The trial court admitted the prior-act evidence for three limited purposes: (1) to show defendant’s sexual purpose (propensity under Williams), (2) to prove intent under the doctrine of chances, and (3) to explain witness behavior; the court gave limiting jury instructions.
On appeal defendant argued the evidence was irrelevant or its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; he claimed any error required reversal per Baughman.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility to show sexual purpose (propensity under Williams)	Prior abuse shows defendant has sexual interest in children and makes sexual purpose toward D more probable	Prior acts contested and different in victim age/acts, so probative value weak	Evidence relevant under Williams; trial court did not abuse discretion admitting it for sexual purpose
OEC 403 balancing (probative value vs unfair prejudice)	LeMay factors and case circumstances (no physical evidence, risk of claims of coaching) justify admission	Prior acts remote, contested, and prejudicial; probative value overstated	Court permissibly balanced LeMay factors; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice
Admissibility under doctrine of chances (intent)	Multiple similar instances make accident unlikely; admissible to show intentionality	Doctrine doesn’t apply because defendant contests prior acts; admission was improper	Even if erroneous, admission harmless because sexual-purpose ruling covered same inference about intent
Admissibility to explain witness behavior	Prior abuse explains why D’s mother repeatedly questioned D and addresses coaching concerns	Details/identity unnecessary; a generic statement would suffice; prejudicial detail was avoidable	Admission to explain mother’s conduct was relevant; any error in detail was harmless given admissibility for sexual purpose

State v. Williams, 357 Or. 1 (Or. 2015) (prior acts may be admissible to show sexual purpose in child sexual abuse prosecutions)
State v. Baughman, 361 Or. 386 (Or. 2017) (errors in assessing nonpropensity purposes can affect OEC 403 balancing and require appellate scrutiny)
United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (nonexclusive LeMay factors guide Rule 403 balancing for prior sexual-act evidence)
State v. Mayfield, 302 Or. 631 (Or. 1986) (framework for OEC 403 balancing: need, prejudice, balancing, and ruling)
State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535 (Or. 1986) (criteria for admitting uncharged misconduct to prove intent)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (discussion of the risk that other-acts evidence can lure juries to decision on improper grounds)
State v. Pitt, 352 Or. 566 (Or. 2012) (relevancy standard and review)