State v. Bahr

── State v. Bahr ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Aoyagi Category: General No. 400 May 13, 2026 429 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID MICHAEL BAHR, Defendant-Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 23CR45381; A184766 Ladd J. Wiles, Judge. Submitted February 4, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. AOYAGI, P. J. Affirmed. 430 State v. Bahr Cite as 349 Or App 429 (2026) 431 AOYAGI, P. J. Defendant was convicted of sexual offenses against two children. On appeal, he raises two assignments of error. First, he challenges the trial court’s ruling that, if defendant testified, the state would be allowed to impeach him with evidence of a previous sexual offense against a 13-year-old girl, as relevant to his having a sexual interest in children, which ruling caused him not to testify. Second, defendant moved for a mistrial after one of the complainants referred to excluded evidence in her testimony, and defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying that motion. We affirm. FACTS In 2023, defendant was charged with committing sexual offenses against two children in 2012 and 2013. Complainant T had been eight years old at the time, and complainant M had been 10 years old at the time. Specifically, as to T, defendant was charged with first-degree unlawful sexual penetration for penetrating T’s vagina with his finger (Count 1), first-degree sexual abuse for touching T’s vaginal area (Count 2), and first-degree sex- ual abuse for touching T’s buttocks (Count 6). Those charges arose from a single incident in 2012. While staying at defen- dant’s mother’s house, T went to sleep in defendant’s bed, and defendant allegedly touched her buttocks, touched her vaginal area, and inserted his finger into her vagina. As to M, defendant was charged with first-degree sodomy for engaging in oral sexual intercourse with M (Count 3); first-degree sodomy for engaging in oral sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion (Count 4); and first-degree sexual abuse for touching M’s breast (Count 5). Those charges arose from a single incident in 2013. Defendant allegedly went into M’s bedroom while she was brushing her three- year-old niece’s hair, touched the bottom of M’s breasts under her shirt, pulled down his pants, exposed his half-erect penis, and used his hand to push M’s head toward his penis. A jury found defendant guilty of Counts 2 and 5 as charged; found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of attempt on Counts 1, 3, and 4; and acquitted him on Count 432 State v. Bahr 6. After merger, the court entered a judgment convicting defendant of attempted first-degree unlawful sexual penetra- tion (Count 1), two counts of first-degree sexual abuse (Counts 2 and 5), and attempted first-degree sodomy (Count 3). ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR CONVICTION Before trial, the state moved in limine for a rul- ing allowing it to put on evidence at trial of defendant’s prior out-of-state conviction for misdemeanor third-degree assault with sexual motivation. The prosecutor explained that the evidence was relevant to defendant’s sexual inter- est in children, because the victim was 13 years old at the time of the offense. He emphasized that the state wanted to use the evidence only to establish defendant’s sexual inter- est in children and wo