State v. White

Evidence of other abuse is not per se propensity evidence and may be relevant for a nonpropensity purpose depending on the facts and circumstances in a given case.

Defendant appealed conviction for “various sexual offenses.” Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of “prior, uncharged acts of sexual abuse” against the same victim. Defendant argued that using uncharged misconduct to explain delayed reporting requires a character inference “that the complainant is credible because defendant acted consistently with his character to abuse her.” Evidence of other abuse is not per se propensity evidence and may be relevant for a nonpropensity purpose depending on the facts and circumstances in a given case. The Court, rendering its decision on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, held that evidence of other abuse does not always implicate a character inference. The Court reasoned that nonpropensity theories “will often bolster a witness’s version of events,” but the fact that evidence does bolster a victim’s testimony does not convert the theory of admissibility to a propensity theory. The Court found that the trial court admitted the other abuse evidence in this case because it “was probative of why the victim had not disclosed the charged acts” until a later date. Because the evidence bolstered the victim’s testimony through a nonpropensity inference, it was admissible. Affirmed