<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 5 5 3 3 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"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">State v. Corbin</span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> (12/23/15)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">(This case was adjudicated <i>
pre-Williams</i>):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Defendant, in two trials, was convicted of multiple DV and non-DV related crimes. In the first case, the prosecutor under 404(3) and 404(4) offered evidence of Defendant’s other bad acts toward the victim.
The Defendant objected under 404(3) but did not respond to the State’s 404(4) argument. The trial court admitted the evidence under 404(3), finding that the evidence was relevant to Defendant’s intent. In the second case, the prosecutor offered Defendant’s
other bad acts under 404(3). Again, the trial court admitted the evidence. In both trials, the court conducted the requisite prejudicial vs. probative analysis. The court did not give a<i> Leistiko</i> instruction in either case. That is, the jury was
<u>not</u> instructed that, before considering “other acts” evidence, it must<u> first</u> decide whether the Defendant actually committed the current charged offenses. The Defendant did not request the
<i>Leistiko </i>instruction nor did it object to the court’s failure to give the instruction. However, on appeal the Defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting the other acts evidence without giving the<i> Leistiko</i> instruction.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Holding:</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> The Defendant failed to preserve his argument (because he did not request a
<i>Leistiko</i> instruction nor object to it not being given). Also, under <i>Williams</i>, failure to give the
<i><u>Leistiko </u></i>instruction is not plain error. Also, although the Court was not explicit in its
<i>Mayfield</i> analysis “ the court made specific findings in both cases, concerning the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence.”
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A154001.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Williams </span></u></i><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Reminder:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">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:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">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
<b><i>defendant’s</i></b> “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:12.0pt"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S061769.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S061769.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">**<b><u>Recommendation</u></b>: Argue all applicable evidentiary rules; don’t just rely on 404(4). And if you rely on 404(3) then you also need to make sure that the appropriate jury instructions are provided.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Erin S. Greenawald</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Sr. Assistant Attorney General | DA/LE Assistance| Criminal Justice Division<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Oregon Department of Justice<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">2250 McGilchrist Street SE, Suite 100, Salem OR 97302<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">Main: 503.378.6347 | Desk: 503.934.2024 | Fax: 503.373.1937</span><span style="font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype","serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></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>