State v. Williams
346 P.3d 455
| Or. | 2015Background
- Defendant charged with two counts of first-degree sexual abuse involving a five-year-old.
- Underwear evidence found in defendant's residence; state sought to admit to show sexual purpose.
- Trial court admitted underwear evidence under OEC 404(3); defendant objected as irrelevant under OEC 401 and prejudicial under OEC 403.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding underwear evidence inadmissible as not logically relevant under OEC 401.
- Oregon Supreme Court held OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3) in criminal cases, but due process requires OEC 403 balancing in child-sexual-abuse prosecutions; underwear evidence properly admitted.
- Court remanded for consideration of remaining assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3) in criminal cases. | Williams argues 404(4) abrogates 404(3) entirely. | Williams argues 404(4) collapses balancing into non-propensity admissibility. | OEC 404(4) supersedes 404(3) in criminal cases. |
| Whether due process requires OEC 403 balancing for “other acts” in child sexual abuse prosecutions. | State contends uniform 403 balancing not required by due process. | Defendant contends due process limits not require 403 balancing for such evidence. | Due process requires 403 balancing in child-sexual-abuse prosecutions. |
| Whether the underwear evidence is logically relevant under OEC 401. | Underwear shows defendant's sexual interest; relevant to sexual purpose. | Underwear could be seen as propensity evidence; relevance is weak. | Underwear evidence is logically relevant to sexual purpose. |
| Whether the trial court properly balanced probative value against unfair prejudice under OEC 403. | Court should admit if probative value outweighs prejudice. | Risk of prejudice could outweigh probative value. | Trial court properly balanced under OEC 403; admission affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (due process safeguards when admitting other-acts evidence)
- Old Chief v. United States, 517 U.S. 172 (1997) (necessity and prejudice balancing in admission of prior facts)
- LeMay v. United States, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (historical practice and Rule 403 balancing underpin due process considerations)
- Shaw v. State, 338 Or 586 (2005) (balancing and relevance standards for other-acts evidence in Oregon)
- Pinnell v. State, 311 Or 98 (1991) (mapping 404(3) to 403 balancing in admission of other acts)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (due process concerns with propensity evidence)
- State v. Sparks, 336 Or 298 (2004) (logical relevance and alternative proof of an element)