State v. Cardona

Under OEC 404(3), “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible in a criminal trial for noncharacter purposes, including to establish defendant’s motive for the charged act.” State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 520, 412 P3d 175 (2018). Whether evidence is relevant to motive is a question of law. State v. Carreiro, 185 Or App 19, 22, 57 P3d 910 (2002). “Motive is a cause or reason that moves the will and induces action, an inducement which leads to or temps the mind to commit an act. State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160, 171, 387 P3d 405 (2016).

Defendant appealed from a jury conviction of assault in the fourth degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his request for a limiting instruction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court should have granted his request for a limiting instruction because the evidence related to the property damage, which was obtained a day after the alleged assault, had no relevance to whether he actually committed the alleged assault the day before. In response, the State argued that the property damage evidence was admissible because it was related to Defendant’s “hostile motive” from the day before. The State argued that Defendant became angry when he did not get what he wanted and as such the evidence of his hostile conduct from one day was directly related to the previous day as well. Under OEC 404(3), “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible in a criminal trial for noncharacter purposes, including to establish defendant’s motive for the charged act.” State v. Tena, 362 Or 514, 520, 412 P3d 175 (2018). Whether evidence is relevant to motive is a question of law. State v. Carreiro, 185 Or App 19, 22, 57 P3d 910 (2002). “Motive is a cause or reason that moves the will and induces action, an inducement which leads to or temps the mind to commit an act. State v. Wright, 283 Or App 160, 171, 387 P3d 405 (2016). The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in deciding that the evidence obtained a day after the alleged assault could be used to establish Defendant’s motive the day before especially when each of the two incidents were motivated by different factors when they occurred.

Judgment of conviction for fourth-degree assault reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.