<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" style="text-autospace:none"><u><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">From DOJ’s Appellate Update:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><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"><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">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:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">B</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">AD
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;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:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">:
In case where defendant was charged with<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">assaulting his girlfriend, evidence that he had assaulted previous intimate partners<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">was not admissible under OEC 404(3) to prove “hostile motive” or to prove intent<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">under a doctrine-of-chances theory.
<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"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></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. Tena,
</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">362 Or 514, __ P3d __ (2018) (Lane) (AAG Doug Petrina).<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">Defendant was charged with assaulting his live-in girlfriend when he became angry<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">because he suspected that she had been drinking. At trial, he denied assaulting her,<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">claiming that she had fallen and injured herself accidentally. The victim also recanted<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">her report to police, testifying at trial that she injured herself when she tripped and fell<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">during a purely verbal argument. To prove that the victim’s injuries were not accidental,<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 state sought to admit evidence that defendant had twice previously—7 and 14 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">earlier—assaulted other domestic partners after he became angry at them, the first during<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">an argument over child-care issues, and the second because his then-girlfriend hugged<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">another man. The state argued that the other-act evidence was admissible under OEC<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">404(3) for two non-propensity purposes: to establish that defendant had a hostile motive<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">toward the victim, and to establish his intent under a doctrine-of-chances theory. 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 (Judge R. Curtis Conover) admitted the evidence under those theories, 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">defendant was convicted. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was not admissible for<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 purposes for which the state offered it, and that it was inadmissible 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">evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed.<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">:
<b>Reversed and remanded (Landau, S.J.).</b> The trial court erred in admitting<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 prior-act evidence under OEC 404(3).
<b><i>Hostile Motive. </i></b>[1] For other-act 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">involving someone in the same “class” as the victim to be admissible under OEC 404(3)<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">under a “hostile motive” theory, the state must prove “more than the simple fact 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">other acts involved such individuals.” It must prove that “the motive for committing 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">other acts was that the other person persons were members of the class to which 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 belongs.” [2] Here, the evidence showed that the prior assaults were 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">motivated by the fact that the other victims were defendant’s intimate partners, so 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 erred in admitting the evidence under a hostile-motive theory.
<b><i>Doctrine of<o:p></o:p></i></b></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">Chances.
</span></i></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black">[3] Admissibility under a doctrine-of-chances theory—which relies on “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">proposition that multiple instances of similar conduct are unlikely to occur<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">accidentally”—applies “only to explain whether or not that a defendant performed 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">performed intentionally. It does not apply when there is a dispute about 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">defendant performed the act at all.” [4] Because defendant claimed that he did not assault<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, the other-act evidence was not admissible to prove intent under a doctrine-ofchances<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">theory. [5] The court did not consider the state’s alternative OEC 404(4)<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">argument—that the evidence was admissible under a propensity theory—because state<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 advance that theory in the trial court and, had it done so. Because the case is<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">remanded to the trial court, the trial court can address that issue on remand and conduct<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.<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"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue"><a href="http://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17027coll3/id/5770/rec/1">http://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17027coll3/id/5770/rec/1</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><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">NOTE (from me):<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></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">So, clearly this is not a good case for prosecutors or victims. Some things to consider that I’m still trying to work out:<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">Could introducing expert witness testimony help us in the future to successfully admit 404(3) evidence? Experts could provide testimony on DV Dynamics, that DV is rooted in the perpetrator’s need for power
and control; explaining the tactics perpetrators employ to gain/maintain that power and control; that perpetrators use the tactics that work for them continuously but not in the same way all the time; etc.
<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">In its discussion, the Court actually notes that the Defendant’s motives included “</span>disagreement about child-care issues, the victim’s desire to work, and jealousy.” Obviously, the motives identified
by the Court are, in fact, (as you all know) some of the most common tactics perpetrators use to gain/maintain power and control over the victim: using the children against the victim in every way possible, limiting the victim’s ability to work (financial
abuse), and accusations of infidelity (jealousy). The Court’s identification of those motives, if truly understood in the context of what a DV relationship LOOKS and FEELS like, actually proves the State’s point---separate and together, they are Defendant’s
motive (and justification) for abusing his partners. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The other question is around whether we should be arguing 404(4) in addition to 404(3). We’d previously advised prosecutors to not use that argument in anything but child sex abuse cases, but perhaps the landscape is changing. Stay tuned!
I’m working with the Appellate division and hope to provide clearer advice in the near-future.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">--Erin <o:p></o:p></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"><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>