Court of Appeals of Oregon· 8/30/2000

State v. Leach

Citations

9 P.3d 755
169 Or. App. 530
2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1432

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that evidence of grooming was relevant to “plan” or “preparation” and should not be excluded under OEC 403 balancing
concluding that evidence of grooming was relevant to ‘plan’ or ‘preparation’ and should not be excluded under OEC 403 balancing
“[t]he foundational requirements for ‘grooming’ evidence * * * are a hotly contested issue” and “an open question”
“Johns, by its terms, controls only where ‘prior bad acts’ evidence is offered to prove intent.”
requirements established in Johns do not apply to all “non-propensity” bases for admission of evidence; evidence that is not admissible under Johns to show intent may be admissible under OEC 404(3) as proof of “plan” or “preparation”
noting, but not addressing, “same victim predisposition” issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Haselton, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 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.