Court of Appeals of Oregon· 7/27/2022

State v. Cave

Citations

321 Or. App. 81
516 P.3d 279

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“Although both parties presented arguments regarding the testimony’s admissibility as propensity evidence under OEC 404(4), the trial court expressly declined to ‘reach that issue because [the testimony] wasn’t admitted for a propensity purpose.’ ”
“[I]f the state’s theory of admissibility requires the factfinder to infer from defendant’s prior actions that he was more likely to have acted with the same purpose in the charged instance, that evidence is propensity evidence[.]”
“[I] f the state’s theory of admissibility requires the factfinder to infer from [the] defendant’s prior actions that he was more likely to have acted with the same purpose in the charged instance, that evidence is propensity evidence[.]”
“[I]f the state’s theory of admissibility requires the fact- finder to infer from [the] defendant’s prior actions that he was more likely to have acted with the same purpose in the charged instance, that evidence is propensity evidence[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hellman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.