State v. Tena, 412 P.3d 175

Background

Defendant lived with the victim (his girlfriend); in Aug. 2011 the victim reported that defendant grabbed her hair, repeatedly punched her, choked and threw her down; she later recanted and claimed she fell and hit a chair.
Defendant was charged with fourth-degree assault as a felony because of prior domestic-violence convictions.
The State sought to admit evidence of two prior assaults on intimate partners (1997 and 2004) to prove hostile motive and intent (doctrine of chances).
Trial court admitted the prior-act evidence; defendant was convicted. Court of Appeals affirmed on hostile-motive grounds.
Oregon Supreme Court granted review to decide admissibility of prior-act evidence under OEC 404(3) (nonpropensity purposes), OEC 404(4), and OEC 403 balancing.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior domestic-violence incidents were admissible under OEC 404(3) to show hostile motive	Prior assaults on other intimate partners show a pattern of hostility toward intimate partners and thus motive to assault this victim	Prior incidents lacked a substantial connecting link (different motives, isolated, remote in time)	Not admissible; connection to motive insufficient
Whether prior incidents admissible under doctrine of chances to show intent (OEC 404(3))	Similar prior violent acts make accidental injury unlikely, supporting intentional assault	Doctrine of chances applies only when intent/mistake is disputed; here defendant denied committing the act at all	Not admissible under doctrine of chances because defendant contested act occurrence (claimed he did not assault her)
Whether prior-act evidence could be admitted under OEC 404(4) if not admissible under OEC 404(3)	If 404(3) fails, 404(4) allows other-acts evidence in criminal cases subject to OEC 403/Due Process balancing	State did not press 404(4) below; appellate court should not decide 404(4)/403 balancing for first time on appeal	Court declined to decide 404(4)/403 on appeal and remanded for trial court to consider OEC 404(4) and OEC 403 balancing if raised below
Whether OEC 403 balancing by trial court should have barred admission (prejudice vs. probative value)	Admission was probative and appropriate; any balancing issue unpreserved	Admission was highly prejudicial; probative value low and outweighed by prejudice (argument preserved but not decided)	Court did not decide because OEC 403 argument was unpreserved for appellate resolution; trial court should address on remand if 404(4) considered

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williams, 357 Or. 1 (discusses interplay between OEC 404(3) and OEC 404(4) and constitutional limits on propensity evidence)
State v. Baughman, 361 Or. 386 (establishes two-step test: nonpropensity relevance under 404(3), then OEC 403 balancing; if not 404(3), consider 404(4) and 403)
State v. Moen, 309 Or. 45 (other-acts against a class may show motive when prior acts show animus toward that class)
State v. Flett, 234 Or. 124 (requires substantial connecting link between prior acts and charged act to prove motive)
State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364 (doctrine of chances limited to disputes about intent/mistake, not disputes over whether act occurred)
State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535 (explains doctrine of chances: repeated similar acts increase inference of mens rea)
State v. Hampton, 317 Or. 251 (defines "motive" as why defendant did what he did)
State v. Klamert, 253 Or. 485 (threats against a class admissible to show motive against a victim in that class)
State v. Mazziotti, 361 Or. 370 (remand for trial court to conduct OEC 403 balancing under Baughman)