State v. Roquez
257 Or. App. 827
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant was charged with first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and two counts of second-degree sexual abuse based on an incident with victim P in May 2010; P testified she did not consent to anal intercourse and that defendant used force.
- The State sought to introduce evidence of defendant’s 2006 guilty plea for second-degree sexual abuse involving a different victim, S, to prove intent, plan/knowledge, and lack of consent.
- At a pretrial hearing the court admitted the 2006 plea and S’s testimony, finding the prior act similar in nature and not remote in time.
- At trial the jury convicted defendant of first-degree sodomy and one count of second-degree sexual abuse, acquitted on other counts; defendant appealed the admission of the other-crimes evidence.
- The trial court instructed jurors they could consider the prior conviction for intent/knowledge or absence of mistake/accident but not as propensity evidence.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the prior-act evidence was inadmissible under OEC 404(3) because it did not sufficiently establish intent or P’s lack of consent and risked impermissible character inference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior sexual-abuse conviction under OEC 404(3) | 2006 conviction is admissible to prove intent/forcible compulsion and absence of consent (doctrine of chances; similarities). | Prior act is impermissible character/propensity evidence; single prior incident is insufficient to prove intent or another victim’s lack of consent. | Reversed: prior-act evidence inadmissible — insufficient to prove intent under doctrine of chances and not relevant to prove P’s state of mind. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535 (1986) (sets multi-factor test for admissibility of other-crimes evidence to prove intent)
- State v. Leistiko, 352 Or. 172 (2012) (rejects using a single prior sexual-assault incident under doctrine of chances to prove intent and rejects cross-victim consent inference)
- State v. Berg, 223 Or. App. 387 (2008) (standard of review for admissibility under OEC 404(3))
- Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1948) (rejects using one victim’s consent choice to prove another’s consent)