State v. Martinez
Facts
Defendant was convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughter, MT, based on allegations that when she was about 11 he gave her bedroom "massages" involving rubbing her against him. Before trial, the state sought to introduce testimony from MT's cousin that defendant repeatedly opened the closed girls' bedroom door, entered, and remained there when he knew girls were showering or changing clothes. Defendant also sought to call church elder David Gomez to support impeachment of AT, defendant's then-wife, based on her desire for a church-sanctioned divorce. At trial, defendant's memory expert, Dr. Reisberg, testified generally about memory but also specifically stated that MT's memory was likely to have faded and to be not particularly clear or crisp.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting other acts evidence under OEC 404(4) and OEC 403 to show defendant's sexual interest in young females, whether it erred in excluding Gomez's testimony as irrelevant collateral impeachment evidence, and whether it erred in striking the expert's case-specific memory testimony as vouching.
Rule
In criminal cases, other acts evidence is admissible under OEC 404(4) if relevant under OEC 401 and not excluded under OEC 403. Under the Davis-Martinez framework, a court should parse the act if possible, assess whether relevance depends on character reasoning, and may admit evidence that does not primarily or substantially derive its relevance from character-based propensity reasoning; in child sexual abuse cases, however, evidence of prior acts or interactions with children may be admitted after OEC 403 balancing when it has cognizable probative value on the sexual-purpose element, so long as it is not used to prove that the defendant committed the charged act because of that character. Bias impeachment is always permissible, but extrinsic evidence may be excluded when the facts showing bias have already been fully admitted. Testimony that directly applies credibility-related principles to a specific witness's truthfulness or memory is impermissible vouching.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If the state offers that evidence solely to show that, if the charged touching occurred, it was done for a sexual purpose, the court should rule that the evidence is: