Background
Edward Samuel Thompson was convicted in Lane County Circuit Court of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse. The trial court admitted a substantial amount of prior acts evidence to support the prosecution’s case, resulting in Thompson’s conviction. In 2022, this Court reversed the conviction in a nonprecedential opinion, finding the trial court had erred in determining the prior acts evidence was relevant to nonpropensity purposes.
On remand, the trial court readmitted all of the same evidence, this time explicitly relying on Oregon Evidence Code 404(4). The trial court’s stated reasoning was that the evidence “made it more likely that [defendant] was sexually interested in the victim and that he committed the charged acts.” The jury was given a limiting instruction that the evidence could only be considered for its relevance to the defendant’s “sexual interest in children.”
Thompson appealed the evidentiary rulings on remand. The state conceded the trial court’s error, acknowledging that recent Oregon appellate decisions—State v. Travis and State v. Bahr—establish that the trial court’s propensity-only theory is erroneous under Oregon law.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state’s concession and reversed the conviction. The court found that the trial court impermissibly admitted prior acts evidence based solely on a “propensity-only” theory—the notion that evidence of prior sexual conduct shows the defendant is the type of person likely to commit sex crimes. Under recent Oregon precedent (Travis and Bahr), prior acts evidence under OEC 404(4) cannot be admitted for this purpose.
The court further held that the limiting instruction provided to the jury was insufficient to cure the error. The instruction told jurors they could consider the evidence only regarding the defendant’s “sexual interest in children,” but it did not prevent the jury from using that evidence as propensity evidence—i.e., to infer that because the defendant had shown such interest in the past, he was more likely to have committed the charged crimes. A properly crafted “sexual-purpose-only instruction” would have been required to prevent this prohibited reasoning, but no such instruction was given.
Key Takeaways
- Prior acts evidence cannot be admitted under OEC 404(4) on a “propensity-only” theory, even in sexual abuse cases.
- A limiting instruction framing evidence as showing the defendant’s “sexual interest in children” is insufficient if it still allows the jury to reason that such interest makes the charged crimes more likely.
- A “sexual-purpose-only instruction” is required to prevent jury propensity reasoning when prior acts evidence is admitted.
- The state’s concession of error, combined with controlling Oregon precedent, requires reversal and remand for new trial or sentencing.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Oregon’s strict limitations on prior acts evidence in sexual abuse prosecutions. Despite the inflammatory nature of such charges, courts cannot simply admit evidence of a defendant’s prior conduct because it makes the defendant “look bad” or suggests a sexual attraction to minors. The line between permissible specific-purpose evidence and impermissible propensity evidence is critical, and limiting instructions must be carefully tailored to preserve that boundary.
The case also highlights the importance of appellate oversight of trial court evidentiary rulings. Even when a trial court repurposes evidence following reversal, appellate courts will scrutinize whether the new reasoning complies with controlling precedent. Prosecutors and trial judges must apply the standards set forth in Travis and Bahr when considering whether prior acts evidence is truly admissible for a lawful nonpropensity purpose.