State v. Teitsworth
304 P.3d 793
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant and his then-girlfriend (victim) had an intermittent domestic relationship; police responded to a December 18, 2008 altercation in which the victim reported being punched, thrown, and kicked in the face; she had visible bruising and bleeding.
- Defendant was charged with fourth-degree assault (recklessly causing physical injury) and harassment, both domestic-violence counts; jury convicted on assault only; defendant was sentenced to probation.
- Before trial, the state sought to admit evidence of prior altercations in which the victim said defendant had been the initial aggressor and had injured her; the trial court admitted that evidence for nonpropensity purposes (intent, absence of accident, rebuttal of self-defense, motive, plan).
- Defendant objected under OEC 404(3) as impermissible propensity evidence and argued prejudice; trial court overruled and the evidence was presented to the jury.
- On appeal, defendant challenged admission of the uncharged-misconduct evidence; the appellate court reviewed relevance as a question of law (with deference to historical findings) and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior uncharged assaults were admissible to prove the culpable mental state (recklessness) for fourth-degree assault | Prior similar assaults show defendant knew punching/striking could cause injury, so they are relevant to prove he acted recklessly | Admission was improper propensity evidence; culpable mental state was not contested and jury would be unfairly prejudiced | Not admissible for proving recklessness because recklessness was not a contested issue — the charged conduct itself established that state of mind |
| Whether prior uncharged assaults were admissible to rebut defendant’s self-defense claim (i.e., show defendant was initial aggressor) | Prior acts show a hostile pattern making it more likely defendant was the aggressor, thus relevant to rebut self-defense | Prior acts were propensity evidence and prejudicial; not admissible for that purpose | Admissible to rebut self-defense; prior similar domestic assaults on same victim were relevant to whether defendant was the initial aggressor |
| Whether admission of prior acts to prove identity was proper | Trial court allowed identity as a theory | Defendant argued identity was not contested | Held erroneous to admit for identity because identity was not in dispute |
| Whether prejudicial effect required exclusion under OEC 404(3) balancing | State did not rely on balancing; argued admissibility under nonpropensity purposes | Defendant argued probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice | Court rejected defendant’s prejudice argument as to self-defense purpose and affirmed admission for that purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535, 725 P.2d 312 (1986) (prior domestic hostile acts admissible to prove intent/men rea in similar circumstances)
- State v. Moen, 309 Or. 45, 786 P.2d 111 (1990) (prior threats/hostility toward victim probative of hostile motive and intent)
- State v. Yong, 206 Or. App. 522, 138 P.3d 37 (2006) (prior convictions for violence against same victim admissible to rebut defendant’s claim he was not the aggressor)
- State v. Pitt, 352 Or. 566, 293 P.3d 1002 (2012) (uncharged misconduct cannot be admitted to show propensity; admissibility requires relevance to contested issue)
- State v. Titus, 312 Or. 475, 982 P.2d 1133 (1999) (standard of review: relevance of uncharged misconduct is question of law; appellate deference to historical findings)