State v. Woods, 393 P.3d 1188

Background

Victim (M), age 12, lived with his mother and defendant (stepfather); mother was an alcoholic and M spent time alone with defendant.
M testified defendant gave him alcohol and on multiple occasions touched his genitals; on one occasion defendant performed oral sex on M.
The State sought to admit testimony from M’s uncle about an earlier uncharged incident in which the uncle observed defendant put his hand down M’s pants. Defendant objected as propensity evidence.
Trial court admitted the uncle’s testimony under State v. McKay as evidence of defendant’s sexual inclination toward a specific victim; defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of second-degree sodomy.
Defendant appealed the admission of the prior-act testimony and the trial court’s restitution award of $85,611.73 for M’s treatment, challenging causation for the restitution.
The trial court found a causal connection between defendant’s abuse and M’s subsequent substance use and mental-health deterioration; the appellate court affirmed both the evidentiary ruling and restitution order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-uncharged sexual-act testimony	State: admissible under McKay to show defendant’s sexual inclination toward this victim (non-propensity, person-specific relevance)	Defendant: evidence was improper prior-bad-acts/propensity evidence and trial court should have applied Leistiko procedural safeguards (and OEC 403 balancing)	Admission upheld; Leistiko procedures not required because evidence was offered under McKay (not doctrine-of-chances); OEC 403 balancing claim not preserved and not plain error
Requirement to perform OEC 403 balancing for "other acts" evidence	State: evidence was McKay sexual-predisposition evidence; no preserved OEC 403 objection was made	Defendant: trial court should have performed OEC 403 balancing and/or considered due-process requirement (Williams)	Court refused to consider because defendant did not preserve OEC 403 or due-process objection at trial; therefore no error on appeal
Plain-error review of failure to give Leistiko instructions	N/A	Defendant: requests plain-error review asserting failure to follow Leistiko was obvious error	Plain-error fails: not "apparent" because State offered evidence under McKay and Turnidge confirms Leistiko not required in that context
Restitution — causal link between crimes and treatment costs	State: presented evidence that defendant’s abuse precipitated M’s alcohol/substance abuse and mental-health worsening, necessitating treatment	Defendant: argued record does not establish causal relationship between defendant’s conduct and M’s treatment costs (mother’s alcoholism may have caused problems)	Restitution upheld: trial court’s factual findings (abuse preceded and exacerbated M’s substance use and mental-health decline; contributions not separable) were supported by record

Key Cases Cited

State v. McKay, 309 Or. 305 (permits admission of prior sexual acts to show defendant’s sexual predisposition toward a specific victim)
State v. Leistiko, 352 Or. 172 (procedural safeguards for certain intent evidence)
State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364 (Leistiko instructions not required where evidence is not offered under doctrine-of-chances)
State v. Williams, 357 Or. 1 (OEC 403 balancing in child-sex-abuse prosecutions as a due-process requirement when properly raised)
State v. Mayfield, 302 Or. 631 (discusses admissibility and OEC 403 balancing for prior sexual-conduct evidence)
State v. Kirkland, 268 Or. App. 420 (restitution prerequisites: criminal activities, economic damages, causal relationship)
State v. Dillon, 292 Or. 172 (same restitution framework)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (plain-error test)