How later courts describe this case

• finding similar contention trial court's exclusion of evidence violated constitutional right to present meaningful defense not preserved for appellate review when offer of proof not made
• applying the abuse of discretion standard to review of a factually similar circumstance
• for evidence to be admissible under OEC 404(3), its logical relevance must not depend on “an inference relating to the defendant’s character or propensities”
• defendant’s complaints about counsel did not necessitate substitution of counsel because they concerned strategic decisions that were counsel’s to make
• setting not compelling, partly because defendant exercised control over interrogation
• “[I]f evidence of prior crimes is to be admitted to prove identity based on modus operandi, the trial court must find a very high degree of similarity between the charged and uncharged crimes, as well as a methodology that is highly distinctive.”