State v. Travis

Courts should determine whether the evidence is relevant for non-propensity purpose(s) under OEC 404(3) and, if so, determine if the probative value outweighs the potentially prejudicial value under OEC 403. If evidence is not relevant for non-propensity purpose(s), then a trial court must determine if the evidence is relevant under OEC 404(4) and further weigh the probative versus prejudicial value pursuant to OEC 403.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to admit certain evidence and provide jury instructions allowing nonunanimous verdicts. Defendant was convicted of multiple sex crimes. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court did not properly assessthe purpose for admitting the challenged evidence under OEC 404(4), and therefore the trial court abused its evidence-balancing discretion under OEC 403. The state argued that even if the evidence was inadmissible under OEC 403(3), it was admissible under OEC 404(4). Furthermore, the state argued that the court considered the evidence under OEC 404(4). Courts should determine whether the evidence is relevant for non-propensity purpose(s) under OEC 404(3) and, if so, determine if the probative value outweighs the potentially prejudicial value under OEC 403. If evidence is not relevant for non-propensity purpose(s), then a trial court must determine if the evidence is relevant under OEC 404(4) and further weigh the probative versus prejudicial value pursuant to OEC 403. On review, the Court found the trial court did not properly review the evidence for relevancy under OEC 404(4) and the admission of evidence resulted in a harmful error. Reversed and remanded.