State v. Tinoco-Camarena, 489 P.3d 572

Background

Defendant (17 at the time) was tried as an adult, convicted of aggravated murder and unlawful use of a weapon, and sentenced to life without parole; conviction reversed and remanded on evidentiary grounds.
Victim N was stabbed and died; detectives developed a suspect sketch and identified defendant, who later admitted to stabbing N and said he intended to "do the same" to N as he had done to another woman.
About 25 days after N’s murder, defendant assaulted, raped, and kidnapped a different adult victim, H, and later pleaded guilty to those crimes.
At trial the State introduced detailed other-acts evidence about the H assault (H’s testimony, photographs of her injuries, and detective testimony) to show defendant’s motive/intent to rape N.
Defendant objected under OEC 404(3) (ban on propensity evidence) and OEC 403 (prejudice vs. probative value); the trial court admitted the disputed evidence for motive/intent.
The Court of Appeals held the admission was erroneous because connecting the two incidents as the same ongoing motive required an impermissible propensity/character inference; the detailed H evidence should have been excluded and the conviction was reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-acts evidence under OEC 404(3) (motive/intent)	State: Defendant's confession that he intended to "do the same" establishes a direct, nonpropensity link showing motive to rape N; other-acts evidence is therefore admissible.	Tinoco-Camarena: The H evidence was offered only to show propensity to attack women to rape them and thus should be excluded under OEC 404(3).	Court: Admission was error—linking the acts as the same ongoing motive depended on an impermissible propensity inference; detailed H evidence inadmissible.
Whether defendant's confessions avoid propensity inference	State: Confessions supply a direct link (no need for propensity inference) showing common motive.	Defendant: Confessions do not eliminate the need for additional objective evidence linking the motives across time; otherwise propensity inference is required.	Court: Confessions alone were insufficient to show a continuous motive over 25 days; additional explanatory evidence was needed; absent that, linkage rested on impermissible character reasoning.
OEC 403 balancing (prejudice vs probative value) for the detailed H evidence	State: Probative for motive/intent; limiting instruction and lack of "unfair prejudice" justify admission.	Defendant: H's graphic testimony, photos, and detective testimony were extensive and unduly prejudicial and cumulative.	Court: Because admissibility failed under OEC 404(3), OEC 403 balancing need not salvage the evidence; the graphic H evidence should have been excluded.
Whether a limiting instruction cured propensity concern	State: A limiting instruction directing jury to consider other acts only for motive/intent mitigates propensity risk.	Defendant: A limiting instruction cannot cure an evidentiary theory that depends on propensity-based linkage.	Court: Limiting instruction did not cure the fundamental propensity-based logical link; it does not validate evidence inadmissibly offered.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386 (2017) (framework for analyzing relevance of other-acts evidence under OEC 404(3)).
State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464 (2021) (evidence inadmissible if logical link depends on propensity inference).
State v. Davis, 290 Or App 244 (2018) (other-acts notes insufficient to show sexual motive for charged offense; propensity inference impermissible).
State v. Garrett, 350 Or 1 (2011) (suppression of subsequent burglary evidence where no logical tie to charged offense other than propensity).
State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160 (2016) (motive evidence defined; prior-act motive not admissible when same-motive link is speculative).
State v. Pratt, 309 Or 205 (1990) (burden on proponent to show other-acts evidence is probative of nonpropensity purpose).