<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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="color:#1F497D">Good Morning,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Yesterday, DOJ’s Appellate Division sent out summaries for two “Other Acts” evidence cases that were decided in Oregon’s Court of Appeals:
<b><i>State v. </i></b></span><b><i><span style="color:#1F497D">Baughman</span></i><span style="color:#1F497D"> and
</span><i><span style="color:#1F497D">State v. </span><span style="color:#1F497D">Mazziotti</span><span style="color:#1F497D">.
</span></i><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">These two cases are the most recent in a growing number of cases that have been decided since
<i>State v. Williams</i> (2015) changed the way we analyzed “Other Acts” evidence as it applies to defendants.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">T</span><span style="color:#1F497D">he cases
</span><span style="color:#1F497D">don’t </span><span style="color:#1F497D">change the current</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> (<i>Williams</i>)</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> analysis</span><span style="color:#1F497D">. That is,</span><span style="color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="color:#1F497D">i</span><span style="color:#1F497D">n terms of evidence of Defendant’s “other acts,”
<b>404(4) controls</b>. The court must do a 403 balancing analysis. Technically, the Defendant has to request 403 balancing, but it seems like best practice for the State to urge the court to always perform this balancing, and
<u>to put it on the record</u>, regardless if Defendant requests it. And, in order for the court to do the analysis correctly, the State needs to be clear about
<i>why </i>it is offering the evidence. In the notes on <i>Baughman, </i></span><span style="color:#1F497D">the Appellate division</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> urge</span><span style="color:#1F497D">s</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> prosecutors not
to use the “shotgun” approach—that is, we need to try and be specific about why we are offering the evidence,<i> don’t</i> just argue all
</span><span style="color:#1F497D">potential, possible, maybe-viable</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> reasons, for example. And, if we are arguing that the evidence is relevant to prove intent, we still have to go through the<i> Johns</i> analysis so that
we (and the court) can properly include that analysis in its 403 reasoning.</span><span style="color:#1F497D"> To this point, however, it should be noted that there are cases pending in the Court of Appeals where the State is arguing evidence offered to prove
intent need not always meet the <i>Johns</i> factors. So, stay tuned!</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Erin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Baughman,
</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">276 Or App 754, __ P3d __ (2016) (Clatsop) (AAG Patrick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Ebbett). Defendant sexually abused his girlfriend’s daughter over a period of years,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">when they lived in Clatsop and Umatilla counties. He was charged in Clatsop County<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">with multiple counts of sex crimes. Before the trial, the state moved to introduce<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence of uncharged acts of abuse defendant committed against the victim in Umatilla<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">County, and similar acts of abuse he had committed against A, the daughter of his former<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">girlfriend. After conducting analyses under OEC 404(3) and OEC 403, the trial court<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">(Judge Cindee Matyas) admitted the evidence of defendant’s abuse of A as relevant to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">three “non-propensity theories”—to prove identity, to prove intent, and to bolster the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">credibility of the victim. The court also admitted his uncharged acts of abuse against the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">victim for the same reasons. The jury found defendant guilty on some charges and<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">acquitted him on others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: Reversed and remanded (Sercombe,
P.J.). [1] Under OEC 404(4) as<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">interpreted in
<i>State v. Williams</i>, 357 Or 1 (2015), due process requires a trial court to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">conduct OEC 403 balancing before admitting other-acts evidence. [2] In evaluating the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">trial court’s application of OEC 403, the purposes for which the court admitted the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence must be examined; here, the court was incorrect as to two of its three stated<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">“non-propensity” purposes for admitting the evidence. [4] As to identity, although the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">acts were similar to the charged acts, they did not show that “defendant operated in a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">novel or distinctive manner” that would identify him as the perpetrator. [5] As to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">bolstering the victim’s credibility, “the admission of prior misconduct evidence to bolster<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the victim’s credibility simply amounts to the admission of evidence for a propensity<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">purpose.” [6] Given the similarity of the charged and uncharged acts, the evidence was<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">admissible to prove intent under the
<i>Johns </i>factors. [7] Having erred on two of the three<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">grounds for admissibility, when the trial court applied OEC 403 balancing it “did not<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">correctly consider the quantum of probative value of the evidence.” [8] Because “under<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Williams</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, a failure to perform the
requisite balancing test is violation of defendant’s due<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">process rights under the United States Constitution, the court applies the federal<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">“harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” harmless error test. [9] The error was not<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F487D"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152531.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152531.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F487D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Note</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: The trial court in this case
did not purport to admit the evidence under a<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">propensity theory of relevance, and thus did not consider that theory in conducting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">OEC 403 balancing. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence might have been admissible under a propensity theory, as suggested by the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Supreme Court in
<i>Williams</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Practice Tip</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: Often, prosecutors
will argue for the admissibility of prior-acts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence under every possible non-propensity theory of relevance to see what will<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">“stick.” This case demonstrates the need for caution in proposing multiple theories of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">admissibility, because they affect the calculus in balancing probative value against the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">potential for unfair prejudice—in other words, when it comes to theories of admissibility,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">more is not always better. Be sure to check the case law concerning the various theories<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">before offering them to the court, and if you have questions about whether evidence<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">should be admitted under a particular theory, please give us a call.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">EVIDENCE—PRIOR BAD ACTS: In light of
<i>Williams</i>, the trial court erred by not<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">balancing under OEC 403 before admitting prior-crimes evidence, as defendant had<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">requested. The proper remedy is a remand for a new trial.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Mazziotti</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 276 Or
App 773, __ P3d __ (2016) (Lane) (AAG Dave<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Thompson). Defendant was in a traffic accident involving a motorcycle he was driving;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">his passenger was injured in the accident. He was charged with failure to perform the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">duties of a driver when property is damaged, failure to perform the duties of a driver to<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">injured persons, reckless endangerment, and reckless driving. At trial, the state offered<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for eluding and reckless driving, including the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">facts underlying those convictions, under OEC 404(3). The state asserted that the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence was relevant to prove his “criminal intent” and his “awareness and disregard …<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the recklessness.” Defendant objected to the evidence, arguing that it was not relevant<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">for any permissible purpose and that, even if it was relevant, its probative value was<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The trial court (Judge Josephine Mooney)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">ruled that the evidence would “be allowed under the rule, because it sounds like [the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence goes] to knowledge with respect to” reckless endangerment and reckless<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">driving. Defendant was convicted.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: Reversed and remanded for
a new trial (Sercombe, P.J.). [1] The trial court<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">made its evidentiary ruling before
<i>State v. Williams</i>, 357 Or 1 (2015), which held that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3). [2] Under
<i>Williams</i>, a trial court may admit<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">evidence of a criminal defendant’s other crimes, wrongs, or acts if (1) it is relevant under<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">OEC 401, and if (2) as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">to the United States, the trial court has determined that the risk of unfair prejudice posed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">by the evidence does not outweigh its probative value under OEC 403. [3] Here, the trial<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">court failed to conduct OEC 403 balancing, which defendant had requested. The court<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">did not state on the record that it had conducted the 403 balancing, nor was it apparent<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">from the record that the court had considered the factors for such balancing set forth in<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Mayfield</span></i><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 302 Or 631 (1987).
In sum, the court could not “conclude, on this<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">record, that the trial court implicitly balanced the relevant factors and concluded that the<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">probative value of the prior acts evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">of unfair prejudice.” Because the trial court admitted the prior-act evidence without first<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">conducting the requested OEC 403 balancing, that was error under
<i>Williams</i>. [4] Because<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">the error was not harmless, defendant’s convictions are reversed and the case is remanded<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">for a new trial.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153713.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153713.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></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>