State v. McKay
Jurisdiction | Oregon |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on review, v. Douglas Glenn McKAY, Petitioner on review. DC 87-5533; CA A49217; SC S36538. |
Citation | 787 P.2d 479,309 Or. 305 |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Decision Date | 22 February 1990 |
David Brian Williamson, of Williamsons & Hunnicutt, St. Helens, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.
Janet A. Metcalf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With her on the response to the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before PETERSON, C.J., and LINDE, * CARSON, JONES, GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN and FADELEY, JJ.
Defendant is charged with sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. ORS 163.415. Before trial, the state moved to allow testimony by the victim about sexual contacts between her and defendant on several occasions, beginning when she was 10 years old and ending when she was about 13. She was 15 when the incident giving rise to this charge occurred.
The trial court denied the state's motion and excluded the evidence. The state appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the trial judge. State v. McKay, 97 Or.App. 590, 776 P.2d 1316 (1989). In doing so, the Court of Appeals engaged in a bit of hyperbole in interpreting our decision in State v. Zybach, 308 Or. 96, 775 P.2d 318 (1989), asserting that if the state is able to show that the proffered evidence can be helpful to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is relevant and admissible insofar as OEC 404(3) is concerned.
The Court of Appeals reached the right result, but for the wrong reason. State v. Zybach does not deserve the transformation written for it by the Court of Appeals.
In Zybach, we said:
* * *
As should be plain from the quoted language, we did not open the evidentiary door for all evidence of prior sexual misconduct that can be helpful in proving the prosecution's case.
OEC 404(3) provides:
The listed exceptions are illustrations, not limitations. See State v. Pratt, 309 Or. 205, 210, 785 P.2d 350 (1990).
Simply stated, the proffered evidence here was admissible to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Berg
...is relevant for a noncharacter purpose—that is, to show the sexual inclination of the defendant towards that victim. State v. McKay, 309 Or. 305, 308, 787 P.2d 479 (1990). Thus, evidence of the 1997 allegations was admissible to show defendant's sexual predisposition toward H and A. Because......
-
State v. Baughman
...is relevant for a fifth nonpropensity purpose—to prove that defendant had a sexual predisposition for the victim. See State v. McKay, 309 Or. 305, 308, 787 P.2d 479 (1990) (holding prior acts evidence involving same victim admissible to "demonstrate the sexual predisposition this defendant ......
-
Delgado-Juarez v. Cain
...to consider evidence relating to each alleged victim as relevant to the charges regarding the other. See, e.g., State v. McKay , 309 Or. 305, 307-08, 787 P.2d 479 (1990) (evidence of uncharged sexual contacts between the defendant and the victim admissible under OEC 404(3) to demonstrate th......
-
People v. Donoho
...115 N.M. 514, 518, 853 P.2d 1270, 1274 (App.1992); Hawkins v. State, 782 P.2d 139, 141 (Okla.Crim.App.1989); State v. McKay, 309 Or. 305, 308, 787 P.2d 479, 480 (1990); Commonwealth v. Knowles, 431 Pa.Super. 574, 578, 637 A.2d 331, 333 (1994)), to cases in which the victim is a minor (Turne......
-
The whole truth: restoring reality to children's narrative in long-term incest cases.
...(265) See Pounds v. United States, 529 A.2d 791, 795 (D.C. 1987). (266) Id. (267) Id. (268) 776 P.2d 1316 (Or. Ct. App. 1989), aff'd, 787 P.2d 479 (Or. (269) Id. (270) Id. (271) State v. G.S., 650 A.2d 819, 824 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994). For additional cases where courts have admitte......