State v. Pitt, 293 P.3d 1002

Pitt charged with two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of A, a four-year-old.
On remand, trial admitted uncharged misconduct evidence about A and R in Lane County; motion in limine denied.
Trial relied on Johns six-factor framework to admit prior acts for intent, absence of mistake, and identity; evidence included testimony from A and R and physical findings.
Court of Appeals affirmed admission to bolster identification; relied on a bolstering rationale beyond Johns’ traditional identity exception.
This Court reverses the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, holding the evidence was not admissible to prove identity and was improperly admitted for other purposes; remands for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
admissibility of uncharged acts for identity	Pitt argues uncharged acts cannot prove identity under traditional 404(3).	Pitt contends bolstering identification is permissible under 404(3).	Not admissible for identity; reversed.
admissibility for intent/absence of mistake	Evidence could show defendant acted with intent.	Defense maintains acts were irrelevant absent conceded charged acts.	Not properly admitted to prove intent/absence of mistake; conditional admissibility required.
harmlessness of error	Uncharged acts influenced verdict by bolstering credibility.	Any error was harmless given other evidence.	Not harmless; reversal affirmed.

State v. Johns, 301 Or 535 (1986) (identity exception requires high similarity and distinctive methodology)
State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172 (2012) (doctrine of chances; admissibility depends on act occurrence and stipulation)
State v. McKay, 309 Or 305 (1990) (sexual predisposition toward a specific victim; narrow applicability)
State v. Perry, 347 Or 110 (2009) (focused appellate review of pretrial rulings; preservation of error)
State v. Titus, 328 Or 475 (1999) (relevance and admissibility of prior acts; review for legal error)