State v. Herring

“OEC 404(3) precludes admission of evidence if the proponent’s theory of relevance requires the factfinder to employ ‘propensity reasoning,’ which requires the factfinder ‘to rely on an inference about the defendant’s bad character and resultant propensity to commit criminal acts at any link in the chain of logical relevance.” State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705, 716 (2021).

Defendant appealed a conviction of “attempted first-degree assault with a firearm, unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm, and felon in possession of a firearm in connection with a shooting outside a Portland hospital.” Defendant assigned eleven errors to the trial court, but the Court only addressed the first and tenth assignments. The first concerned admission of evidence of Defendant’s gang affiliation and the tenth concerned admission of evidence found in codefendant’s house. Defendant argued on appeal that both pieces of evidence are not relevant because the state’s theory required the jury to consider a propensity inference. The state responded by claiming this evidence allowed the jury to logically and reasonably infer Defendant’s motive. “OEC 404(3) precludes admission of evidence if the proponent’s theory of relevance requires the factfinder to employ ‘propensity reasoning,’ which requires the factfinder ‘to rely on an inference about the defendant’s bad character and resultant propensity to commit criminal acts at any link in the chain of logical relevance.” State v. Jackson, 368 Or 705, 716 (2021). The Court reasoned that the evidence from codefendant’s house was relevant and did not employ propensity reasoning, but the gang affiliation evidence was inadmissible because it required the jury to infer Defendant’s bad character gave him a predisposition to commit criminal acts. Therefore, the trial court erred in admitting the gang affiliation evidence and this error warranted a new trial. Reversed and Remanded.