With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". defendant’s “sexual propriety” evidence for errors of law. See State v. Bea, 318 Or 220, 224, 864 P2d 854 (1993) (declining to accept the state’s concession as to a legal conclusion). See also Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72, 77, 948 P2d 722 (1997) (“In construing a statute, this court is responsible for identifying the correct interpretation, whether or not asserted by the parties.”). 5 See also Laird C. Kirkpatrick and Christopher B. Mueller, 1 Federal Evidence § 101 at 551 (2nd ed 1994) (“character evidence means proof relating to commonly-recognized human qualities that might be called innate or essential to the person being described”). 6 Other jurisdictions have similarly construed and applied their analogues to OEC 404. See State v. Anderson, 211 Mont 272, 292, 686 P2d 193, 204 (1984) (<HOLDING>); State v. Miller, 709 P2d 350, 353-54 (Utah

A: holding that in disciplinary proceedings a student must be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and if he denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story
B: holding that merely declining to rehire a person did not constitute defamation for deprivation of liberty interest purposes absent any charges against the good name or reputation of that person
C: recognizing that evidence of the defendants sexual mores and good character functioned to establish his reputation for morality and personal truthfulnessconduct and beliefs inconsistent with the charges filed against him
D: holding that the defendant could not be liable for malicious prosecution where the plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that defendants conspired with influenced or even participated in the prosecutors decision to bring charges against him
C.