State v. Phillips

Under OEC 404(3) “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 allows such evidence for reasons such as proof of motive, the proponent bears the burden of showing relevance.

Defendant appealed his conviction for counts of first-degree rape, harassment, strangulation, fourth degree assault, and first-degree sodomy. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's admitting evidence of prior acts of strangulation because they depended on unfairly prejudicial propensity-based reasoning. The State argued that prior acts were relevant to show Defendant’s motive of lingering hostility towards the victim and to counter Defendant’s possible argument that victim consented. Under OEC 404(3), “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 allows such evidence for reasons such as proof of motive, the proponent bears the burden of showing relevance. Thus, the State must show the evidence is probative of something other than Defendant’s predisposition to do something wrong. The Court finds the evidence admissible solely for the limited purpose of rebutting Defendant’s consent defense, rather than to show Defendant’s motive. The State failed to meet its burden because no temporal proximity existed between the acts, Defendant did not reference prior acts during the acts which he was charged with, and previous acts did not culminate in sexual assault. REVERSED AND REMANDED.