State v. Taylor

To admit other acts evidence as evidence of a spurious plan, the State must show (1) “not merely a similarity” in results, but concurrence of “common features” that are naturally explained “as caused by a general plan” and (2) “something more than the similarity required for other crimes evidence to be admissible to prove intent.” State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 181, 188–89, 282 P3d 857 (2012).

Defendant appealed a conviction for third-degree sexual abuse resulting from his behavior in a library. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s decision to admit a video—showing Defendant engaging in similar behavior on the same day in the same building—as other-acts evidence under OEC 404(3).  On appeal, Defendant argued that the video was not relevant, and its admission was harmful.  In response, the State argued that the video was relevant to show Defendant’s plan, motive, and absence of mistake in committing sexual abuse.  To admit other acts evidence as evidence of a spurious plan, the State must show (1) “not merely a similarity” in results, but concurrence of “common features” that are naturally explained “as caused by a general plan” and (2) “something more than the similarity required for other crimes evidence to be admissible to prove intent.”  State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 181, 188–89, 282 P3d 857 (2012).  The Court found that a jury could reasonably “infer the existence of a plan” to invade women’s space in the library and assault them.  This meant the video was “probative of Defendant’s mental state.”  Therefore, the Court held that the trial court correctly admitted the video into evidence.  Affirmed.