|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Shawn Gary Williams|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Patrick M. Ebbett and Doug M. Petrina on behalf of State of Oregon|
Mary M. Reese on behalf of Shawn Gary Williams
Statement of Issues:
|State of Oregon v. Shawn Gary Williams (S061769) (A145644) (appeal from Josephine County Circuit Court; opinion reported at 258 Or App 106, 308 P3d 330 (2013)).|
The State of Oregon has been granted review of a Court of Appeals decision that reversed and remanded the convictions of defendant Shawn Gary Williams on two counts of first-degree sexual abuse.
On review, the issues are:
(1) If evidence is probative of a fact that the state must prove to obtain a conviction, is the evidence logically relevant under OEC 401 even if the fact is undisputed?
(2) If uncharged misconduct evidence is logically relevant to prove intent, does OEC 403 authorize its exclusion on legal-relevancy grounds, such as the prosecution's alleged lack of need for the evidence?
(3) Does the rule under State v. Leistiko, 352 Or 172, 282 P3d 857 (2012) – that a prerequisite for admitting uncharged misconduct evidence to prove intent based on the "doctrine of chances" is that either the defendant concedes the charged act or the jury is instructed that it must first find that the actus reus occurred before considering the misconduct evidence to determine the defendant's intent – apply to uncharged misconduct evidence offered to prove intent when the theory of relevancy is not based on the doctrine of chances?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: