State v. Davis

Under State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386 (2017), prior bad acts may be admitted under OEC 404(4) if relevant and not used solely to prove character, and may be excluded under OEC 403 only if their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Defendant appealed his conviction of first-degree sexual abuse, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and admission of two handwritten notes. He argued the notes, which described violent sexual fantasies, were inadmissible under OEC 404(3) as impermissible character evidence and should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial. On appeal, Defendant contended the notes improperly portrayed him as sexually deviant and lacked probative value apart from suggesting propensity. The State maintained that the notes were not admitted to show propensity but to establish intent.

Under State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386 (2017), prior bad acts may be admitted under OEC 404(4) if relevant and not used solely to prove character, and may be excluded under OEC 403 only if their probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that the notes’ probative value stemmed from their relevance to intent, not from character-based reasoning. Because the notes revealed a consistent and contemporaneous intent to commit similar acts, the trial court’s decision to admit them under OEC 404(4) and not exclude them under OEC 403 fell within the permissible range of discretion.

The Court of Appeals was reversed, and the case remanded for consideration of the preserved motion for judgment of acquittal. REVERSED AND REMANDED.