State v. Skillicorn

Evidence is barred by OEC 404(3) if “the chain of logical relevance” connecting the evidence to the fact it is proffered to prove relies on “an inference relating to a person’s character or propensities.”

Defendant was convicted of unlawful use of a vehicle, first-degree criminal mischief, and second-degree criminal mischief. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s admission of evidence from a prior incident. Defendant argued that the evidence from the prior evidence was propensity evidence and barred by OEC 404(3). In response, the State argued that under the doctrine of chances - which allows for the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence to support the argument that a person’s prior engagement in similar behavior is more likely to show that the person engaged in the behavior at issue - the evidence was admissible. “Evidence is barred by OEC 404(3) if ‘the chain of logical relevance’ connecting the evidence to the fact it is proffered to prove relies on ‘an inference relating to a person’s character or propensities.’” State v. Johnson, 340 Or 319, 338, 131 P3d 173 (2006). The Court held that the trial court's admission of evidence through the propensity theory violated OEC 404(3). The Court reasoned that the State sought to introduce evidence through the propensity theory rather than the doctrine-of-chances theory because the State attempted to prove the defendant’s character in order to prove that he acted in conformance with that character. Reversed.