State v. Wright, 387 P.3d 405

Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault of his wife after she sustained facial injuries during a domestic altercation; both parties offered accidental explanations at trial.
During trial the state elicited testimony (over defense objection) that a few years earlier defendant had threatened to take the complainant into the woods and kill her.
Trial court admitted the threat under OEC 404(3) as relevant to intent/motive, relying on State v. Harris and the Johns doctrine.
Defendant objected after the testimony; the court reaffirmed its ruling and the jury convicted.
On appeal the court reviewed whether the state met its burden under OEC 404(3) to show nonpropensity relevance and whether any error was harmless.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior threat evidence was admissible under OEC 404(3) to prove intent/motive	Threat shows longstanding hostility; logically relevant to motive for the charged assault	Threat was remote and undeveloped; no logical link to the assault	Court: Error to admit—state failed to show a substantial connecting link between threat and charged assault
Whether the Johns (doctrine-of-chances) test applied	Johns not required because state argued motive theory, not doctrine of chances	Johns should apply to test similarity and relevance	Court: Johns test does not apply to non-doctrine-of-chances motive theories (citing Turnidge) but evidence still must be independently relevant under OEC 404(3)
Whether the state carried its burden to show nonpropensity relevance under OEC 404(3)	General hostility inferred from a threat can persist and supply motive years later	Record lacks context, timing, or specific motive; inference is speculative	Court: State failed to show the necessary substantial connecting link; evidence was not relevant for a nonpropensity purpose
Harmless-error analysis	Admission was proper or harmless	Admission was prejudicial	Court: Admission was not harmless—the threat was inflammatory and risked impermissible propensity inference; reversal and remand required

State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364 (2016) (Johns test applies only to doctrine-of-chances theories; other nonpropensity theories governed by OEC 404(3) relevance analysis)
State v. Johns, 301 Or. 535 (1986) (formulated six-factor doctrine-of-chances test for prior-act evidence to prove intent)
State v. Hampton, 317 Or. 251 (1993) (three-part test for admissibility of uncharged misconduct under OEC 404(3))
State v. Garrett, 350 Or. 1 (2011) (proponent must show prior-act evidence is probative of something other than disposition; chain of relevance must not rest on propensity)
State v. Flett, 234 Or. 124 (1963) (no admission where record lacks substantial connecting link between prior act and charged crime)
State v. Harris, 81 Or. App. 574 (1986) (prior threats admitted to show intent in attempted murder case; later distinguished by Turnidge)
State v. Moen, 309 Or. 45 (1990) (prior threats can show hostile motive probative of intent)
State v. Davis, 336 Or. 19 (2003) (Oregon harmless-error test: whether there is little likelihood the error affected the verdict)