context: The ISTIL forgery findings were relevant under OEC 401 because they tended to show that plaintiff did have the skill and sophistication to create forged documents-- which, in the ISTIL case, included the creation of several letters and documents (both typewritten and on word processing equipment), faxes from different places, and forged signatures. That relevancy goes to the impeachment of plaintiffs factual assertions, not whether he had a propensity to forge documents.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: high degree of similarity of circumstances between uncharged conduct and current charges not required when evidence is used for purpose other than to prove identity
citation_a.sentence: See also State v. Momeni, 234 Or App 193, 227 P3d 1230, rev den, 348 Or 523 (2010) (high degree of similarity of circumstances between uncharged conduct and current charges not required when evidence is used for purpose other than to prove identity).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 271 Or 201, 213
citation_b.parenthetical: uncharged misconduct evidence admissible to impeach credibility of defendant's testimony
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Manrique, 271 Or 201, 213, 531 P2d 239 (1975) (uncharged misconduct evidence admissible to impeach credibility of defendant’s testimony); State v. Smith, 86 Or App 239, 244, 739 P2d 577 (1987) (evidence of “other crimes” of the defendant that contradicts a statement of fact made by a witness may be used to impeach that witness’s credibility).