State v. Stockton, 483 P.3d 657

Background

Defendant Eric Stockton was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from repeated domestic-violence incidents involving his former intimate partner T (including three felony fourth-degree assaults, tampering with a witness, and second-degree criminal mischief).
Key charged incidents: (1) Dec. 17, 2014 — defendant threw a hairspray can that struck T (defense: accident); (2) Jan. 29, 2016 — motorhome incident with alleged knife, biting, and other violence; (3) Feb. 20, 2016 — at G’s residence, defendant allegedly trapped, assaulted T, threatened her and damaged a car.
Before trial, the state obtained admission of seven prior charged and uncharged misconduct episodes (involving T and two other former partners), including convictions, 9‑1‑1 recordings, medical records, and officer testimony; the state argued relevance under hostile motive, the doctrine of chances (absence of mistake), and OEC 404(4).
On appeal, Stockton challenged admission of the other‑acts evidence and the trial court’s nonunanimous‑jury instruction; the state conceded some nonunanimous counts required reversal post‑Ramos.
The court held the trial court erred in admitting the other‑acts evidence (both as nonpropensity motive/doctrine‑of‑chances evidence and under OEC 404(4) given the state’s narrow reliance), found the error not harmless as to tampering and criminal mischief convictions, and reversed/remanded several convictions (and remanded for resentencing); other convictions were otherwise affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Stockton's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other misconduct against defendant’s other former partners (hostile motive)	Prior assaults on other partners show defendant harbored a motive/animus toward intimate partners relevant to charged assaults	Prior acts lack a common, case‑specific motive; only show propensity; inadmissible under OEC 404(3)	Reversed: evidence inadmissible as motive—state showed only generalized propensity, not a common motive linking the acts
Admissibility of other misconduct against other partners (doctrine of chances / absence of mistake)	Prior intentional acts rebut defendant’s claim that charged act (hairspray) was accidental	Doctrine of chances inapplicable; prior intentional acts offered propensity evidence	Reversed: doctrine of chances requires series of similar, uncommon accidental events; not met; admission impermissibly propensity‑based (Skillicorn rationale)
Admissibility of other misconduct against T (hostile motive / doctrine of chances)	Repeated similar acts against same victim show persistent hostile motive and rebut mistake	Prior incidents with T simply show repeated domestic violence, i.e., character/propensity evidence; not probative of a specific, persisting motive or uncommon accidental series	Reversed: other‑acts against T did not establish a common motive that persisted or the similarity/frequency required for doctrine of chances; admission was propensity‑based and inadmissible
Nonunanimous jury verdicts and harmlessness of other‑acts error	Nonunanimous instruction valid as to some counts; other‑acts error harmless for unanimous convictions	Nonunanimous verdicts violate Ramos; other‑acts error likely affected verdicts on some unanimous counts	Court accepted concession/reversed nonunanimous counts per Ramos; held other‑acts error was not harmless as to tampering and criminal mischief (Counts 10 and 12); affirmed meth possession conviction (Count 3)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464 (court limited use of doctrine of chances; requires similarity and unusual frequency)
State v. Tena, 362 Or 514 (prior acts against other intimate partners not admissible as motive absent common, case‑specific motive)
State v. Williams, 357 Or 1 (OEC 404(4) permits admission of other‑acts for propensity if relevant under OEC 401 and admissible under OEC 403)
State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386 (articulated two‑step framework for other‑acts admissibility under OEC 404(3) and 404(4))
State v. Morrow, 299 Or App 31 (prior uncharged domestic incidents against same victim held not probative of a specific motive; treated as propensity)
State v. Hagner, 284 Or App 711 (distinguishable: short temporal proximity supported inference that prior hostile acts persisted to motivate charged act)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (nonunanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses violate the Sixth Amendment)
State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 (state procedural handling of Ramos errors; court exercised discretion to correct plain error)
State v. Johns, 301 Or 535 (earlier doctrine‑of‑chances approach, partly superseded by Skillicorn)