skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 122374 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Bad Acts in Oregon: OEC 404(3)
Journal: Willamette Law Review  Volume:25  Issue:4  Dated:(Fall 1989)  Pages:829-853
Author(s): T S Ozias
Date Published: 1989
Page Count: 25
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The State of Oregon's Evidence Code does not permit the admission of misconduct other than that at issue to establish that a person is bad and therefore more likely to have committed the bad act for which he is being tried.
Abstract: Relevant case law is explored, with emphasis on the steps taken by Oregon courts to analyze bad acts evidence and its admissibility. State v. Johns provides a way for bad acts evidence to be admitted. First the evidence can be admitted as relevant so long as it shows something other than that the person acted in conformity with his or her bad character. Second, if the evidence is relevant it must be assessed by the court under Oregon Evidence Code 403 and the following five factors considered: the need for the evidence, the certainty that the person committed the act, the strength of the evidence, the inflammatory effect, and the time consumption and distraction. If a trial court follows these steps and makes its reasoning clear in the record, its decision will probably not be reversed. However, the trial court should never forget that fairness dictates that an accused must answer only for the wrongdoing for which he or she has been charged. 178 footnotes.
Main Term(s): Rules of evidence
Index Term(s): Character testimony; Oregon; Right to fair trial; State constitutions; Trial procedures
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.