Oregon Prior Bad Acts Evidence for Criminal Defense Attorneys (1 of 10) - Arnold Law in Eugene, Oregon – Powerful Advocacy. Proven Results.

Oregon Prior Bad Acts Evidence for Criminal Defense Attorneys (1 of 10)

11.19.2015- by Emilia Gardner and Mike Arnold

1/10: Oregon Prior Bad Acts Evidence for Criminal Defense Attorneys: Improper Character Evidence or Relevant? (1 of 10)

2/10: Oregon Prior Bad Acts: Analysis of “Prior Bad Act” Evidence for Criminal Defense Lawyers (2 of 10)

3/10: Oregon Prior Bad Acts: Post-Williams Paradigm Shift (3 of 10)

4/10: Oregon Evidence Code 403 Balancing: Prior Bad Acts & Due

5/10: Oregon Evidence Code 404: Character Evidence vs. Releva

6/10: Oregon Character Evidence: Intentional Crimes (6 of 10)

7/10: Oregon Character Evidence: Knowledge as Criminal Element (7 of 10)

8/10: Oregon Character Evidence: Criminal Motive (8 of 10)

9/10: Oregon Character Evidence: Criminal Defense Lawyer Analysis (9 of 10)

10/10: Oregon Character Evidence: Jury Instructions (10 of 10)

First, our analysis below begins with an overview of the paradigm shift in the admissibility of other acts evidence that has occurred in light of State v. Williams, 357 Or 1 (2015).[1] This section will focus on what has changed and the new steps for the other acts analysis.  We will also review all of the post-Williams other acts cases.

Second, we will argue how the other acts relevance analysis is conducted under OEC 401 and in the post-Williams world. In particular, he will illustrate how the pre-Williams cases on motive, intent, etc., still apply when determining relevance and propensity vs. non-propensity evidence.  With Williams, “‘other acts’ evidence that is offered for non-propensity purposes—i.e., to prove motive, intent, identity, or lack of mistake or accident – generally will be admissible as long as particular facts of the case do not demonstrate a risk of unfair prejudice that outweighs the probative value of the evidence.”  State v. Williams, 357 Or at 19.  This begs the question on how to determine if the evidence is relevant for the claimed purpose or actually propensity evidence.  That is where the old case law still comes into play.

We will identify how each act should be analyzed, including the balancing test. As discussed below, the due process probative vs. unfairly prejudicial balancing test favors the exclusion of all of the evidence.  State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 282 P3d 857 (2012) requires a jury only to consider the other acts evidence if the jury has found that the charged crime’s actus reus occurred.  Then, assuming the act evidence is relevant for intent, motive, etc., the other acts evidence is only considered to determine his intent, motive, etc.

NEXT PAGE: Oregon Prior Bad Acts: Analysis of “Prior Bad Act” Evidence for Criminal Defense Lawyers (2 of 10)

Awards/Recognitions
Interpreters Available