<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Prosecutors: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court issued its ruling in
<i>State v. Williams </i>(357 Or 1 (2015))<i>.</i> <i>Williams</i> is a child sex abuse case in which the prosecutor offered as a trial exhibit children’s underwear from the defendant’s home to prove that the defendant had a sexual interest in young girls and
that his sexual touching of the victim was not accidental, as defendant was claiming. The trial court admitted the evidence. Defendant was convicted.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. The court’s opinion sets forth an analysis of the rules governing the admissibility of “other acts” evidence. This ruling has significantly changed the ability of
prosecutors to use “other acts” evidence in <i>all </i>criminal prosecutions, not just child sex abuse cases. Most notably, the court ruled that OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3) re: the admissibility of evidence of a
<i>defendant’s</i> “other acts” in a criminal trial. Evidence of a defendant’s “other acts” is generally admissible so as long as the evidence is relevant and does not violate due process (which requires a balancing test if the evidence is objected to by the
defendant.) Also, “propensity” evidence may be admissible in child sexual abuse cases, and possibly in adult sex abuse and DV cases. Finally, it is important to remember that “[p]rosecutors
<i>should not</i> rely on Court of Appeals decisions that have suggested that a trial court need not conduct OEC 403 balancing, because those cases may no longer be good law.” (DOJ’s Legal Bulletin: Admission of a Defendant’s Other Acts: OEC 404(4) After State
v. Williams, pp 6.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">DOJ’s appellate division distributed an excellent summary of
<i>Williams’</i> key holdings, identifies big questions left unanswered, and offers practice tips. It is attached.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Recently, the Court of Appeals issued rulings on two cases, applying the
<i>Williams’</i> holding: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">State v. Horner:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152003.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152003.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">State v. Brown:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154684.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154684.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Note: The Court of Appeals in
<i>Brown</i> continues to decline to decide whether <i>Williams</i> requires<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">“traditional” OEC 403 balancing or more narrow “due process” balancing.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></body>
</html>