11 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pinnellgreen2 sentences2021The inquiry is not rejected because character is irrelevant; on the contrary, it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so overpersuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge.” (Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.) Similarly, in State v. Pinnell, 311 Or 98, 105-06 , 806 P2d 110 (1991), this court explained that “[b]ad character evidence (such as other crimes by the accused) is excluded under the propensity rule, not because it is irrelevant, but because of the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused.” Among 2021The inquiry is not rejected because character is irrelevant; on the contrary, it is said to weigh too much with the jury and to so overpersuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a fair opportunity to defend against a particular charge.” (Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.) Similarly, in State v. Pinnell, 311 Or 98, 105-06 , 806 P2d 110 (1991), this court explained that “[b]ad character evidence (such as other crimes by the accused) is excluded under the propensity rule, not because it is irrelevant, but because of the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused.” Among | 2 | 5 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences1994See State v. Griffin, supra, 19 Or.App. at 833 , 529 P.2d 399 . [1] OEC 404(2) states the general propensity rule: "Evidence of a person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion * * *" OEC 404(3) restates that rule: "Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith." Two exceptions to the propensity rule, which are not relevant to this discussion, allow character evidence but limit it to reputation and 1994See State v. Griffin, supra, 19 Or.App. at 833 , 529 P.2d 399 . [1] OEC 404(2) states the general propensity rule: "Evidence of a person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion * * *" OEC 404(3) restates that rule: "Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity therewith." Two exceptions to the propensity rule, which are not relevant to this discussion, allow character evidence but limit it to reputation and | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Powers
green
2 sentences2025LEGAL FRAMEWORK OEC 404(4) provides that, “[i]n criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant” generally is admissible if it is relevant and withstands OEC 502 State v. Travis 403 balancing.2 Whereas OEC 404(3)3 prohibits the use of other-acts evidence to show that the act is indicative of char- acter—a person’s disposition or propensity to engage in cer- tain types of behavior—and that the person acted in confor- mity with that propensity during the events at issue at trial, State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 475-76 , 479 P3d 254 (2021), OEC 404(4) “does not requir 2025LEGAL FRAMEWORK OEC 404(4) provides that, “[i]n criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant” generally is admissible if it is relevant and withstands OEC 502 State v. Travis 403 balancing.2 Whereas OEC 404(3)3 prohibits the use of other-acts evidence to show that the act is indicative of char- acter—a person’s disposition or propensity to engage in cer- tain types of behavior—and that the person acted in confor- mity with that propensity during the events at issue at trial, State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 475-76 , 479 P3d 254 (2021), OEC 404(4) “does not requir | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2025LEGAL FRAMEWORK OEC 404(4) provides that, “[i]n criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant” generally is admissible if it is relevant and withstands OEC 502 State v. Travis 403 balancing.2 Whereas OEC 404(3)3 prohibits the use of other-acts evidence to show that the act is indicative of char- acter—a person’s disposition or propensity to engage in cer- tain types of behavior—and that the person acted in confor- mity with that propensity during the events at issue at trial, State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 475-76 , 479 P3d 254 (2021), OEC 404(4) “does not requir 2025LEGAL FRAMEWORK OEC 404(4) provides that, “[i]n criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant” generally is admissible if it is relevant and withstands OEC 502 State v. Travis 403 balancing.2 Whereas OEC 404(3)3 prohibits the use of other-acts evidence to show that the act is indicative of char- acter—a person’s disposition or propensity to engage in cer- tain types of behavior—and that the person acted in confor- mity with that propensity during the events at issue at trial, State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 475-76 , 479 P3d 254 (2021), OEC 404(4) “does not requir | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Skillicorn
green
2 sentences2025LEGAL FRAMEWORK OEC 404(4) provides that, “[i]n criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant” generally is admissible if it is relevant and withstands OEC 502 State v. Travis 403 balancing.2 Whereas OEC 404(3)3 prohibits the use of other-acts evidence to show that the act is indicative of char- acter—a person’s disposition or propensity to engage in cer- tain types of behavior—and that the person acted in confor- mity with that propensity during the events at issue at trial, State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 475-76 , 479 P3d 254 (2021), OEC 404(4) “does not requir 2025LEGAL FRAMEWORK OEC 404(4) provides that, “[i]n criminal actions, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts by the defendant” generally is admissible if it is relevant and withstands OEC 502 State v. Travis 403 balancing.2 Whereas OEC 404(3)3 prohibits the use of other-acts evidence to show that the act is indicative of char- acter—a person’s disposition or propensity to engage in cer- tain types of behavior—and that the person acted in confor- mity with that propensity during the events at issue at trial, State v. Skillicorn, 367 Or 464, 475-76 , 479 P3d 254 (2021), OEC 404(4) “does not requir | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Baughman
green
2 sentences2022ANALYSIS As noted above, in this appeal, defendant argues, among other points, that the trial court erred under OEC 403 in determining that the probative value of the notes out- weighed the substantial risk of unfair prejudice that they created.3 In particular, defendant highlights that the notes did not “threaten nonconsensual physical attack” and that defendant did not “engage in any conduct like that described in the notes during the crime charged—he removed no cloth- ing, and touched no sexually intimate parts in any way.” 3 On appeal, defendant argues also that “in non-child-sex cases, du 2022ANALYSIS As noted above, in this appeal, defendant argues, among other points, that the trial court erred under OEC 403 in determining that the probative value of the notes out- weighed the substantial risk of unfair prejudice that they created.3 In particular, defendant highlights that the notes did not “threaten nonconsensual physical attack” and that defendant did not “engage in any conduct like that described in the notes during the crime charged—he removed no cloth- ing, and touched no sexually intimate parts in any way.” 3 On appeal, defendant argues also that “in non-child-sex cases, du | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Leistiko
green
2 sentences2014It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 180 , 282 P3d 857 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 352 Or 622 , 292 P3d 522 (2012) (“Under OEC 404(3), evidence that defendant forcibly compelled the fourth woman to have sexual intercourse with him is not admissible to prove that he forcibly compelled any of the three victims to have sexual intercourse with him; that is, the rule prohibits the state from introducing the fourth woman’s te 2014It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 180 , 282 P3d 857 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 352 Or 622 , 292 P3d 522 (2012) (“Under OEC 404(3), evidence that defendant forcibly compelled the fourth woman to have sexual intercourse with him is not admissible to prove that he forcibly compelled any of the three victims to have sexual intercourse with him; that is, the rule prohibits the state from introducing the fourth woman’s te | 1 | 2014–2014 |
S059191A State v. Leistiko
green
2 sentences2014It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 180 , 282 P3d 857 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 352 Or 622 , 292 P3d 522 (2012) (“Under OEC 404(3), evidence that defendant forcibly compelled the fourth woman to have sexual intercourse with him is not admissible to prove that he forcibly compelled any of the three victims to have sexual intercourse with him; that is, the rule prohibits the state from introducing the fourth woman’s te 2014It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” See State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 180 , 282 P3d 857 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 352 Or 622 , 292 P3d 522 (2012) (“Under OEC 404(3), evidence that defendant forcibly compelled the fourth woman to have sexual intercourse with him is not admissible to prove that he forcibly compelled any of the three victims to have sexual intercourse with him; that is, the rule prohibits the state from introducing the fourth woman’s te | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Reyes
green
2 sentences2008State v. Reyes, 209 Or 595, 630-31 , 308 P2d 182 (1957). 2008State v. Reyes, 209 Or 595, 630-31 , 308 P2d 182 (1957). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.