<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:12.0pt">Good Morning,<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">Below is a summary of a recent (and good) COA decision re: Other Acts evidence. I’ve also attached the updated Other Acts list that I maintain.
<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">--Erin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">State v. Gonzalez-Sanchez</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">, 283 Or App 800, __ P3d __ (2017) (Washington)(AAG Doug Petrina)<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 was charged with multiple sex crimes against a single child victim. The State sought to introduce evidence of other sex acts committed against the victim by the Defendant in a different county (which
occurred after the acts/crimes being litigated in Washington Co.). The court admitted the ‘Other Acts’ evidence under the State’s proffered theories: 1) To demonstrate D’s sexual interest in this particular victim (per
<i>State. V. McKay</i>); and 2) To provide an explanation regarding Victim’s delayed report/disclosure (per
<i>State v. Zybach</i>). Upon D’s request, the trial court also found that under 403, the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The Defendant was convicted of multiple sex crimes.<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">On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed two errors in conducting OEC 403 balancing: (1) by failing to make an adequate record of its balancing decision; and (2) by concluding that the probative
value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice<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 COA’s opinion acknowledges that post-<i>Williams/Turnidge/Brumbach</i>, the court, upon request, must engage in the
<i>Mayfield </i>four-part process for 403 balancing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">The COA said that though the trial court did not “walk through” the
<i>Mayfield</i> analysis on the record, the record is nevertheless sufficient in that it reflects that the trial court<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">engaged in the “conscious process of balancing the costs of the evidence against its benefits’ that OEC 403 requires.”<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 convictions were affirmed.
<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"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153708.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A153708.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></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>