- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 02-16-2017
- Case #: S063831
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Walters, J. for the Court; En Banc.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery under ORS 164.405(1)(b) (a person has committed robbery in the third degree, and has been “aided by another person actually present”). The trial court found Defendant’s accomplice had clear intent to aid Defendant’s third-degree robbery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but also held that because ORS 164.405(1)(b) does not require a mental state of the accomplice, the state did not need to prove intent to aid. Defendant sought review from Oregon Supreme Court and challenged the sufficiency of evidence to prove she was guilty of second-degree robbery. Review was limited to sufficiency of evidence and the facts were viewed in the light most favorable to the state. This court found that the plain meaning of “aid” connotes the “intent to facilitate an outcome”. Based on the proffered evidence, a factfinder could have found Defendant’s accomplice was aware Defendant committed third-degree robbery, and acted with the intent to facilitate. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for entry of judgment and resentencing as ordered by the Court of Appeals.