State v. Osborne

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, when the only contested issue at trial is whether the events that the victim described had actually occurred, then evidence of prior acts to establish intent are inadmissible
• holding in a child sex abuse case that the trial court erred in admitting the state’s evidence of the defendant’s prior, similar acts of sexual misconduct with a different child, because the defendant’s intent was not a contested issue in the case, and that the error was not harmless
• applying Baughman to exclude evidence that the state offered to prove identity where the state’s premise was that, because the defendant abused a different person on a previous occasion, it was more likely that he abused the alleged victim in the present case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Phillips
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2007-12-19· cited 19×
• State v. Yong
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-06-28· cited 15×
• State v. Hambrick
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-08-20· cited 8×
• State v. Bunting
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-09-10· cited 8×
• State v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-08-14· cited 6×
• State v. Hutton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2013-10-09· cited 5×
• State v. Hutton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-05-16· cited 3×