State v. Powers

"[W]hen conducting OEC 403 analysis, [courts] must consider the probative value of the evidence and determine whether the evidence derives its relevance primarily or substantially from character-based propensity reasoning."

Appealing his conviction for sexual abuse, defendant argued that the trial court wrongly admitted evidence of prior convictions. The Davis framework applies to such evidence's admissibility and involves breaking evidence into its constituent parts before determining the extent to which each part's probative value derives from propensity inferences. See State v. Davis, 372 Or 618, 553 P3d 1017 (2024); State v. Martinez, 335 Or App 643, 654-55, 559 P3d 907 (2024); OEC 403, 404(4). Following that determination, the trial court will limit or exclude those parts of evidence that primarily or substantially derive relevance from character based propensity inferences. See Martinez, 335 Or App at 654-55.

Generally, "evidence offered to prove a defendant’s sexual interest in children is a theory of relevance that relies on propensity reasoning." Martinez, 335 Or App at 655. Such evidence involves both (1) the prior abusive act itself, and (2) the context in which that act occurred. However such evidence may also be relevant to a defendant's sexual purpose (non-character). Accordingly, and in part due to the trial court's limiting instruction (prior convictions could only be considered to establish sexual purpose, not propensity), defendant's prior convictions were properly admitted.

"Affirmed."