[DV_listserv] PBA cases

[Domestic Violence issues]

State v. Goff
Date Filed: 10-09-2013
Case #: A144540
Sercombe, J. for the Court; Ortega, PJ.; and Egan, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A144540.pdf

EVIDENCE: Under OEC 404(3), evidence of prior misconduct is inadmissible to show intent if defendant has not admitted the act in question.
Defendant appealed convictions of multiple counts of assault against his wife, failure to perform duties of a driver, tampering with physical evidence, and disorderly conduct. Defendant argued that two prior domestic violence incidents should have been excluded as impermissible character evidence under OEC 404(3). Defendant moved in limine to exclude prior misconduct as irrelevant because he denied any involvement with the crime. The State argued that prior misconduct was relevant to show Defendant's intent because it showed cause for his wife's injuries and that they were intentional. Initially, the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion, but the Oregon Supreme Court remanded finding that the evidence was inadmissible. The State conceded that the evidence is inadmissible to show intent in this case. Alternatively, the State argued that the evidence is admissible to show motive and plan and that the erroneous admission was nevertheless, harmless. The Court held that evidence of prior misconduct is relevant to prove intent only when the defendant admits to the act. In response to the State's alternative arguments, the Court held that new theories may not be raised on appeal and that the erroneous admission was harmful, as it related to the central issue of the case. Reversed and remanded in part, otherwise affirmed.
[Summarized by: Steven Mastanduno]


State v. Hutton<http://willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/orappeals/2013/10/state-v.-hutton.html>

Date Filed: 10-09-2013
Case #: A142745
Schuman, P.J., Wollheim, J., and Nakamoto, J. for the Court.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A142745A.pdf

EVIDENCE: Evidence of prior bad acts can only be used to prove intent under OEC 404(3) where the defendant admits committing the actus reus or the judge instructs the jury that it must first find the defendant committed the actus reus before using prior bad acts to determine intent

Defendant was accused of fourth degree assault and harassment for hitting the victim in the mouth and pressing a cigarette in her chest.  At trial, the prosecutor filed a motion to admit evidence of a prior time Defendant hit the victim as evidence of a prior bad act to prove intent under OEC 404(3).  The Defendant argued that intent was not at issue since the Defendant was denying that the event did not happen.  The trial court admitted the evidence, the jury found the Defendant guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.  The Supreme Court vacated the decision based on two recent decisions and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration.  Even where intent is a contested issue, evidence of prior bad acts can only be used to prove intent under OEC 404(3) where the defendant admits committing the actus reus or the judge instructs the jury that it must first find the defendant committed the actus reus before using prior bad acts to determine intent.  The trial court erred since the evidence was admitted without these conditions and the Defendant denied the charged acts ever occurred.  Reversed and remanded.

[Summarized by: Sarah De La Cruz]



*****CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. 

************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/dv_listserv/attachments/20131014/ba708cca/attachment.html>