State v. Williams (2015)

Oregon Supreme Court · 2015 · Evidence

357 Ore. 1 (2015)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceOEC 401OEC 403OEC 404(3)OEC 404(4)other acts evidencepropensity evidencechild sexual abuse

Facts

Defendant was charged with putting his hand down a five-year-old victim's underwear and touching her vaginal area, and causing the victim to touch his clothed penis. The state offered evidence that, after defendant moved out, his landlord found one pair of children's underwear between defendant's mattress and box spring and another in a duffel bag in his residence. Defendant denied the charged acts, though he had told police it was possible he inadvertently touched the victim's genital area on three different occasions. Defendant objected that the underwear evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, while the state argued it showed sexual purpose rather than accident.

Issue

Whether evidence that defendant possessed children's underwear was admissible in this criminal case under OEC 401, OEC 403, and OEC 404. More specifically, the court considered whether OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3), whether due process requires OEC 403 balancing in a child sexual abuse prosecution, and whether the underwear evidence was logically relevant to defendant's sexual purpose.

Rule

In criminal cases, OEC 404(4) makes evidence of a defendant's other crimes, wrongs, or acts admissible if relevant, and it supersedes OEC 404(3) except to the extent required by the state or federal constitutions. In a prosecution for child sexual abuse, due process requires that, on request, the trial court perform OEC 403 balancing to determine whether the probative value of the other-acts evidence is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Under OEC 401, evidence is logically relevant if it has any tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable, and the fact need not be disputed.

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Oregon, Noah Mercer is tried for burglary. The prosecutor offers evidence that Noah previously broke into a different apartment in Salem and argues that the prior break-in is relevant because it makes it more likely he committed the charged burglary. Noah objects that other-acts evidence offered to show propensity is categorically barred by OEC 404(3).

Under the majority's approach, how should the trial court analyze the objection in this criminal case?

Explanation. The majority held that in criminal cases OEC 404(4) supersedes OEC 404(3), except to the extent required by the state or federal constitutions. The analysis begins with logical relevance under OEC 401, not with a categorical bar on propensity evidence under OEC 404(3). OEC 404(4) does not make all such evidence admissible regardless of relevance, and it is still subject to constitutional limits and listed exceptions.