- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 11-12-2015
- Case #: A152692
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Edmonds, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree robbery. Defendant assigns error to her conviction, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted the second-degree robbery statute. Defendant argues that “another person actually present” requires knowledge that a crime is being committed and intent to help a defendant commit the crime. The Court agreed with the trial court in its interpretation that “another person actually present” does not require that person to have knowledge of the crime. The “person actually present” who aids Defendant only needs to be in proximity to the victim to be an added threat. Defendant’s boyfriend dropped her off at a store, where she stole items, then picked her up. When security guards tried to stop them, Defendant refused to cooperate and her boyfriend quickly drove away from the scene. Because he did not need to know why the security guards were stopping Defendant or that she had stolen items from the store, there was evidence that he was present within the meaning of the statute. The Court affirmed the conviction for second-degree robbery. The convictions for third-degree robbery and second-degree robbery are reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.