State v. Johnson

Under State v. Turnidge, evidence of prior acts or threats presented to show hostile motive or intent does not need to be similar in type and physical characteristic to the conduct giving rise to the convictions.

Defedant appealed a criminal conviction for reckless endangerment and criminal mischief. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her motion in limine to exclude evidence of threats she made against the victim prior to the incident that gave rise to the charge. Under Johns, evidence of a defendant's prior acts can only be used to prove intent if the prior acts and the charged acts are similar in type and in the physical characteristics. Defendant argued that her prior threats were too dissimilar from the charged conduct, and therefore should not have been admitted into evidence. The Court found that State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364 (2016) recently overruled Johns and held that prior bad acts evidence presented to show "hostile motive" or intent did not need to meet the Johns test, and therefore the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence. Affirmed.