<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:NewCenturySchlbk-Roman;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* 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" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Please find attached the updated PBA/Other Acts list.
<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Here is a summary of the three recent cases from ODOJ’s Appellate Division Legal Update:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">APPEALS—R</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">EMEDY
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">/ EVIDENCE—O</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">THER
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">CTS
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">E</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">VIDENCE</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">:
Other-acts evidence admitted under OEC 404 is subject to ordinary OEC 403 balancing. But the remedy for the trial court’s error in failing to balance under OEC 403 is a limited<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">remand.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">State v. Baughman</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">, 361 Or 386, __ P3d __ (2017) (Clatsop)
(AAG Doug Petrina). <b>(Child Sex Abuse case)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">The issue in this case is which balancing test is the court required to use when making a determination of admissibility of other acts evidence pursuant
to OEC 404 (3) or (4). The court determined that the correct standard is that set forth in OEC 403:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">“In this case we explain that, in a criminal action, when the state proffers evidence of uncharged acts, either to prove a defendant’s propensity to
commit charged crimes under OEC 404(4),</span><span style="font-size:6.5pt;font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">
</span><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">or for a non-propensity purpose under OEC 404(3),</span><span style="font-size:6.5pt;font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">
</span><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">and a defendant objects to the admission of<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">that evidence, the trial court must conduct balancing under OEC 403,</span><span style="font-size:6.5pt;font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">
</span><span style="font-family:"NewCenturySchlbk-Roman","serif"">according to its terms, to determine whether the probative value of the challenged evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064086.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064086.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">APPEALS—R</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">EMEDY
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">/ EVIDENCE—O</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">THER
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">A</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">CTS
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">E</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">VIDENCE</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">:
Other-acts evidence admitted under OEC 404 is subject to ordinary OEC 403 balancing. But the remedy for the trial court’s failure to balance under OEC 403 is a limited remand.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">State v. Mazziotti</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">, 361 Or 370, __ P3d __ (2017) (Lane) (AAG Doug Petrina).
<b>(Reckless Driving and Reckless Endangering case)<o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064085.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064085.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">APPEALS—H</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">ARMLESS
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">E</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">RROR
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">/ EVIDENCE—O</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">THER
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">A</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">CTS
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">E</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">VIDENCE</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:
Admission of other-acts evidence without OEC 403 balancing was harmless because defendant failed to offer a meritorious argument that could persuade a trial court to exclude the evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">State v. Zavala</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">, 361 Or 377,
__ P3d __ (2017) (Lincoln) (SG Benjamin Gutman and AAG Doug Petrina). Defendant was charged with sexually abusing the two daughters of his then-girlfriend. The state sought to introduce evidence of another<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">uncharged incident against one of the victims. The trial court (Judge Thomas Branford) stated on the record that the evidence appeared
to be admissible to prove defendant’s sexual predisposition for the victim, but it invited the parties to research the issue further and raise it again later. Defendant did not raise it again and was convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the
trial court committed plain error in admitting the evidence without explicitly conducting OEC 403 balancing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">Held</span></i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">: Conviction affirmed (Walters,
J.). It does not matter whether defendant preserved his OEC 403 objection, because even if he did, any error by the trial court in failing to conduct balancing was harmless. The evidence appeared to be relevant for a nonpropensity purpose—to prove defendant’s
sexual predisposition for the victim—and such evidence is generally admissible under
<i>State v. McKay</i>, 309 Or 305 (1990). Defendant did not offer any reason that, on the particular facts of his case, the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence. In the absence of a meritorious argument that
could persuade a trial court to exclude the challenged evidence, the trial court’s failure to conduct OEC 403 balancing did not significantly affect the court’s decision to admit the evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064072.pdf">http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S064072.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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 | Cell: 503.932.7482</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>
<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>