State v. Warren

“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith,” but can be admissible to prove other purposes such as “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistaken accident.” OEC 404(3). The evidence must be in similar to the charged crime (true plan) to establish that the defendant formed a plan and used the other evidence as steps to perform that plan.

Defendant appealed judgment of attempted promoting of prostitution (Count 1 and 10), fourth-degree assault, harassment, second-degree assault, unlawful use of weapon, coercion, menacing, attempted compelling prostitution (Count 11) and felon in possession of firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admittance of printed online prostitution advertisements. On appeal, Defendant argued that the online advertisements could not be admitted under OEC 404(3) because they were not “relevant for any non-propensity purpose,” that the probative value of the advertisements did not substantially outweigh the unfair prejudice of the evidence under OEC 404(3) and were inadmissible under hearsay. In response, the State argued that the evidence was relevant to show the common activity, plan, and scheme in the promotion of prostitution by Defendant. “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith,” but can be admissible to prove other purposes such as “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistaken accident.” OEC 404(3). The evidence must be in similar to the charged crime (true plan) to establish that the defendant formed a plan and used the other evidence as steps to perform that plan. The Court of Appeals held that the advertisements were not relevant, and the state did not demonstrate a “high degree of similarity between the online advertisements” and the evidence was not hearsay. Counts 1, 10, and 11 reversed.