532 P.3d 502
Or. Ct. App.2023Background
- Victim (J) was studying in a library carrel when defendant sat beside her, gradually encroached, and touched her genitals under the desk; J moved and reported the incident minutes later.
- A security video from a different (upstairs) library section, recorded minutes earlier, showed defendant sitting beside an unknown woman in a nearly identical cubicle setup and progressively moving into her space; that woman left and defendant later went downstairs and sat next to J.
- The state sought to admit the upstairs video as other-acts evidence under OEC 404(3) to prove intent, motive, plan/preparation, and absence of mistake; defendant sought exclusion as propensity evidence and under OEC 403.
- The trial court admitted the video, gave a limiting instruction, and defendant was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse.
- On appeal and remand from the Oregon Supreme Court (in light of State v. Jackson), the court considered whether the state had articulated a noncharacter chain of inferences (a ‘‘spurious plan’’) sufficient to admit the other-acts evidence; it affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence under OEC 404(3) | Video shows temporally/spatially proximate, highly similar conduct supporting plan, intent, motive, preparation, and absence of mistake | Video is irrelevant to charged act, invites impermissible propensity inference, and is unfairly prejudicial under OEC 403 | Admitted: state sufficiently articulated chain of inferences; evidence relevant as spurious plan and did not depend on character reasoning |
| Effect of State v. Jackson on ‘‘spurious plan’’ evidence | Jackson does not categorically bar spurious-plan evidence; proponent must articulate inferences and noncharacter link | Jackson precludes use of spurious plan evidence because it risks propensity reasoning | Rejected categorical bar: spurious-plan evidence admissible if proponent identifies chain of inferences and explains why it is noncharacter-based |
| Sufficiency of similarity/temporal proximity to support plan inference | Near-identical time, place, and progressive conduct support inferring a plan executed that day in that library | Similarity shows only benign tendencies (e.g., sitting close) and does not prove criminal plan | Similarity and close temporal/spatial proximity here were adequate to permit inference of a plan without relying on impermissible character reasoning |
| OEC 403 balancing (prejudice vs probative value) | High probative value (corroboration, plan/intent); limiting instruction can mitigate prejudice | Video could be misused by jury to infer bad character and be more prejudicial than probative | Trial court did OEC 403 balancing and found limiting instruction sufficient; no error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705 (2021) (requires proponent of other-acts evidence to articulate chain of inferences and explain why those inferences do not depend on character)
- State v. Turnidge, 359 Or 364 (2016) (distinguishes "true plan" from "spurious plan" theories for plan-based other-acts evidence)
- State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172 (2012) (explains required concurrence of common features for inferring a general plan from similar acts)
- State v. Hudman, 279 Or App 180 (2016) (discusses limits where physical similarity is insufficient to support unlinked-plan inference)
- State v. Pitt, 352 Or 566 (2012) (relevance of other-acts evidence assessed as of the motion in limine hearing)