State v. Powell

The court cannot admit evidence if the proponent’s theory of relevance requires the factfinder to employ propensity reasoning. State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 479 P3d 254 (2021).

 Defendant appealed his conviction of six counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court granting the state’s motion to exclude that the victim had lied about issues she was having at school and with the defendant. Defendant argued that the evidence was relevant to victim’s self-interest and motive under OEC 609(1) and OEC 404(3). The State contends Defendant actually intends to introduce testimony for credibility purposes, thus the purpose must be for reputation for truthfulness or opinion. The court cannot admit evidence if the proponent’s theory of relevance requires the factfinder to employ propensity reasoning. State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 479 P3d 254 (2021). The Court held OEC 404(3) bars the use of propensity evidence. The Court found that Defendant did not provide any evidence of hostility between the victim and defendant which meant that the defendant had not established a motive on the part of the victim. Evidence that the victim had ever lied at school would be impermissible character evidence. Affirmed.