State v. Sicks
| Decision Date | 03 April 1978 |
| Citation | 33 Or.App. 435,576 P.2d 834 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Loren Eugene SICKS, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Paul R. Frisch, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Morrow & McCrea, P. C., Eugene.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and LEE, RICHARDSON and JOSEPH, JJ.
Defendant was charged with sodomy in the third degree. ORS 163.385. The indictment alleged that he had engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with a named male under the age of sixteen years.
Prior to trial defendant moved that certain evidence concerning similar acts between himself and other boys be ruled inadmissible. At the hearing on the motion the state indicated that it intended to call as witnesses fourteen other male youths who would testify that they had had similar experiences with defendant at his place of business. In conjunction with that testimony the state planned to introduce a series of photographs of each of the witnesses allegedly taken by defendant. The state represented that it would also call two other boys who had participated with defendant and the alleged victim in group sexual activity. The court allowed defendant's motion in part, ruling inadmissible the evidence concerning acts with the boys who had not participated in the group activities. The state appeals pursuant to ORS 138.060(3). 1 1 See State v. Koennecke, 274 Or. 169, 545 P.2d 127 (1976); State v. Hoare, 20 Or.App. 439, 532 P.2d 240 (1975).
In order for evidence of crimes or bad acts other than those charged in the indictment to be admissible, the state must first establish that the evidence is " * * * probative of some fact the state is entitled to show." State v. Hockings, 29 Or.App. 139, 145, 562 P.2d 587, 590, rev. den. (1977), cert. den., --- U.S. ----, 98 S.Ct. 899, 54 L.Ed.2d 802 (1978). If the state establishes the requisite relevancy, the evidence may nevertheless be excluded if defendant establishes that " * * * it has prejudicial impact which outweighs (its) probative value." Hockings, supra, 29 Or.App. at 145, 562 P.2d at 590. Generally, the state is not permitted to introduce evidence of other crimes or bad acts solely for the purpose of proving that on the occasion charged defendant acted as he had on prior occasions. State v. Pitts, 29 Or.App. 59, 562 P.2d 562, 30 Or.App. 1, 566 P.2d 182, rev. den. (1977). This rule has been strictly applied in sex crime cases, even those involving deviate sexual behavior, insofar as conduct with persons other than the victim is concerned. State v. Pace, 187 Or. 498, 212 P.2d 755 (1949); State v. Ewing, 174 Or. 487, 149 P.2d 765 (1944); State v. Start, 65 Or. 178, 132 P. 512 (1913).
The state asserts several arguments for the admissibility of the evidence in question here. The first is that the evidence tends to establish defendant's intent. Although the state must establish not only that defendant performed the alleged acts, but also that he did so with the requisite culpable mental element, the better view is that evidence of similar acts with other persons will not be admitted for this purpose simply because defendant has pled not guilty. People v. Kelley, 66 Cal.2d 232, 57 Cal.Rptr. 363, 424 P.2d 947 (1967). Where the charged acts, if proven, would by themselves strongly indicate the required state of mind, evidence of other similar acts should generally be admitted only if defendant concedes the alleged act but claims that it was inadvertent or innocent. See State v. Start, supra; cf. State v. Zimmerlee, 261 Or. 49, 492 P.2d 795 (1972). The evidence was not admissible under this head of the state's argument.
Second, the state contends that it was entitled to show as part of its case in chief that defendant made certain exculpatory statements to the police about his course of conduct and that those statements were false. The circuit court properly ruled that the statements could be adequately rebutted by the testimony of the alleged victim and the two youths who would be permitted to testify, without the time-consuming and prejudicial testimony of the fourteen others. See State v. Hockings, supra.
Third, the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hutton
...defendant's argument is that the crime did not occur.” In that regard, defendant principally relies on three cases, State v. Sicks, 33 Or.App. 435, 438, 576 P.2d 834 (1978), State v. Baughman, 164 Or.App. 715, 995 P.2d 551 (2000), rev. dismissed,333 Or. 596, 44 P.3d 590 (2002), and State v.......
-
State v. Kaylor
...or whether the acts, even if committed, lend themselves to some other explanation of the defendant's intent, cf. [ State v.] Sicks, 33 Or.App. [435, 438, 576 P.2d 834 (1978) ] (where the charged acts ‘would by themselves strongly indicate the required state of mind,’ evidence of prior bad a......
-
State v. Teitsworth, MI090018
...of uncharged misconduct is admissible only to prove contested issues. Phillips, 217 Or.App. at 99, 174 P.3d 1032;State v. Sicks, 33 Or.App. 435, 438, 576 P.2d 834 (1978) (generally, evidence of prior bad acts should be admitted to prove the required state of mind only when the defendant dis......
-
State v. Hutton
...differently; there, too, the state bore the burden of proving that element of the charged crimes. Indeed, in [State v. Sicks, 33 Or.App. 435, 438, 576 P.2d 834 (1978) ], we explicitly rejected the argument the state now makes, stating that the ‘better view is that evidence of similar acts w......