Background
Cesar Antonio Solis appealed his convictions for eight counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of third-degree rape. He challenged the admission of evidence that he had sexually abused the same victim in Mexico before the charged Oregon conduct, two photographs showing the victim around the ages when the abuse occurred, and witnesses’ use of the terms “disclose” and “disclosure.” He also challenged the written judgment’s imposition of 10 years of post-prison supervision on Count 3.
The Court of Appeals initially issued a nonprecedential memorandum opinion on July 29, 2026. The state petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that the opinion left unclear whether the case required a resentencing hearing or merely entry of a corrected written judgment. The court agreed that clarification was necessary.
The Court’s Holding
The court allowed reconsideration, withdrew its former opinion, and replaced it with a revised opinion clarifying that no resentencing hearing was required. Accepting the state’s concession of sentencing error, the court remanded solely for entry of a judgment correcting the post-prison supervision term on Count 3. The written judgment improperly imposed an unreduced 10-year term, contrary to the orally announced term of 10 years less time served and the applicable statutory maximum.
The court otherwise affirmed. It held that evidence of Solis’s earlier abuse of the same victim in Mexico was admissible under OEC 404 to show sexual predisposition toward that victim and was relevant to explain her reluctance to report later abuse. The trial court did not abuse its discretion under OEC 403 because the earlier conduct was essentially identical to the charged conduct and was not unduly inflammatory in context. The victim’s photographs were relevant to show her age during the charged period and were not unfairly prejudicial. The blanket pretrial request to bar “disclose” and “disclosure” was also properly denied because those terms do not necessarily imply that an allegation is true, and Solis did not preserve objections to particular uses at trial.
Key Takeaways
- Prior sexual abuse of the same victim may be admitted for the nonpropensity purpose of showing sexual predisposition toward that particular victim under Oregon law.
- A blanket pretrial objection to “disclose” or “disclosure” does not establish improper vouching without a preserved challenge to a specific use of the terminology.
- When a written judgment states an unlawful post-prison supervision term but the required correction is clear, the remedy may be entry of a corrected judgment rather than a new sentencing hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies the limited remedy for the sentencing error while leaving Solis’s convictions intact. It also illustrates how Oregon courts assess same-victim other-acts evidence, age-related photographs, and allegedly credibility-enhancing terminology in child-sex-abuse prosecutions.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.