State v. Taylor

To admit evidence of other acts under OEC 404(3), the proponent must “articulate the chain of inferences that makes the evidence relevant to [an identified] purpose and explain how that chain of inferences does not depend on the actor’s character.” State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705, 733, 498 P3d 788 (2021).

Defendant appealed his conviction for third-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admittance of a security video as other-acts evidence under OEC 404(3). Defendant argued that the video was irrelevant to the facts at issue and was improperly admitted for propensity purposes. The state argued that, because the video showed him sitting close to a woman in the same library shortly before the subsequent “charged act” took place, it was offered to prove that defendant had a plan, which is a valid non-propensity purpose under OEC 404(3). To admit evidence under OEC 404(3), the proponent must “articulate the chain of inferences that makes the evidence relevant to [an identified] purpose and explain how that chain of inferences does not depend on the actor’s character.” State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705, 733, 498 P3d 788 (2021). The Court reasoned that the state sufficiently articulated “the chain of inferences that makes the evidence relevant” under Jackson by asking “the factfinder to infer a plan to sexually abuse somebody from the proximity in time and space and based on the similarity of the other act and the charged act”. Further, the chain was not dependent on the defendant’s character because the inferences depended on the similarities and temporal proximity of the events, not the defendant’s general character or tendencies. Therefore, the test under Jackson had been satisfied and the evidence was admissible for non-propensity purposes. AFFIRMED.