State v. Williams, 308 P.3d 330

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a five-year-old girl under ORS 163.427.
The state must prove touching of the child’s sexual or intimate parts for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire (ORS 163.427(1)(b); ORS 163.305(6)).
The trial admitted testimony that defendant possessed two pairs of little girls underwear found in his cabin, claimed to show sexual intent.
The state presented a recorded interview of defendant by Detective Pierce and a later interrogation by Detective Lidey; the jury heard only the first interrogation.
Defense sought to exclude the underwear testimony and objected to the detective’s credibility comments; the court admitted the underwear evidence.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to error in admitting the underwear evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of underwear evidence to prove sexual intent	State argues underwear shows sexual intent (noncharacter purpose)	Underwear evidence is improper character evidence (OEC 404(3)) and unfairly prejudicial (OEC 403)	Error; reversing and remanding for new trial

State v. Johnson, 340 Or 319 (2006) (evidence admissible if logically relevant and not based on character inference)
State v. Moment, 234 Or App 193 (2010) (tests for admissibility of other-acts evidence to prove intent with limiting instructions)
State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172 (2012) (trial court must limit other-acts evidence or frame conditions for admission)
State v. Pitt, 352 Or 566 (2012) (doctrine of chances requires limits on use of uncharged misconduct to prove intent)
State v. Pratt, 309 Or 205 (1990) (burden to prove probative value of evidence of other acts)