State v. Everett

• Jurisdiction: Oregon
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ronald Alan EVERETT, Defendant–Appellant.
• Citation: 249 Or.App. 139,274 P.3d 297
• Docket Number: CR0800419,A144356.,A140675 (Control)
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 28 March 2012

249 Or.App. 139

274 P.3d 297

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Ronald Alan EVERETT, Defendant–Appellant.

CR0800419

A140675 (Control)

A144356.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 10, 2011.Decided March 28, 2012.

George W. Kelly, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.Ronald Alan Everett filed the supplemental brief pro se.

Douglas F. Zier, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent.With him on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and NAKAMOTO, Judge.

NAKAMOTO, J.,

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction of two counts of solicitation to commit aggravated murder and solicitation to commit second-degree assault.ORS 161.435.He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and its admission of testimony from a state's witness who invoked his privilege against self-incrimination during cross-examination.We affirm.

Because the case arises, in part, from defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the state.State v. Baker–Krofft,348 Or. 655, 658 n. 1, 239 P.3d 226(2010).Defendant was arrested for, among other things, attempting to run over Clackamas County Deputy Sheriff Moss with his car.Moss was the only witness to that incident.While in custody at the Clackamas County Jail, defendant met Piatt, who at the time was a member of a motorcycle gang called the Outsiders Motorcycle Club (the Outsiders).The Outsiders derives its income from illicit activities.Piatt was an “enforcer,” who enforced the Outsiders's rules and “straightened out”people who were violating its guidelines.After learning that Piatt would be released from jail soon, defendant, who knew of Piatt's role in the Outsiders, solicited Piatt to murder Moss so she would not testify at his trial.Unbeknownst to defendant, Piatt was a police informant and notified Clackamas County detectives about defendant's solicitation.Piatt's conversation with detectives was recorded onto a DVD.

Moss testified against defendant at trial, and defendant was subsequently convicted of various charges that are unrelated to this appeal.After that trial, the state charged defendant with one of the crimes pertinent to this case, solicitation to commit aggravated murder of Moss.Piatt testified before the grand jury, and his name was listed as a witness on defendant's indictment.

Defendant also learned about the DVD showing Piatt's interview with the detectives.While awaiting trial for the solicitation charge, defendant met another inmate, Van Alstine, who was scheduled for release.Defendant repeatedly talked to Van Alstine about Piatt being in a biker gang and how Piatt had “ratted him out” at his previous trial.Those conversations took place over several days, until defendant asked Van Alstine if he would retrieve and deliver to the Outsiders the indictment showing Piatt's name as a witness and the DVD showing detectives interviewing Piatt.Defendant told Van Alstine that, once the Outsiders saw the video, “they were going to take care of their own.”Defendant told Van Alstine that the Outsiders “would take care of Barry Piatt” and would “get rid” of him.Defendant explained to Van Alstine that he wanted the Outsiders to have the DVD “so Barry Piatt doesn't show up to court.”Defendant promised to give Van Alstine his sports car as payment if Van Alstine made the requested delivery.

Unbeknownst to defendant, Van Alstine was also an informant who notified the Clackamas County sheriff's department of his conversations with defendant.As a result, the state charged defendant with two counts of solicitation, solicitation to commit aggravated murder and to commit assault of Piatt, in addition to the earlier charge of solicitation to commit aggravated murder of Moss.All of the solicitation charges against defendant were tried together.

Before trial, the trial court denied defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of defendant's prior conviction arising from his attempt to run over Moss.At trial, the state introduced the facts above.Piatt testified that he had prior convictions for assault and was an “enforcer” for the Outsiders.He admitted that he committed criminal acts as an enforcer.He also testified that a member who cooperates with police as an informant risks being killed.

Outside of the jury's presence, defendant's attorney asked Piatt whether he had ever killed anybody.Piatt refused to answer, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.Defendant moved to strike all of Piatt's testimony, arguing that he would not have an adequate opportunity to cross-examine Piatt, thus depriving him of his confrontation rights under both the United States and Oregon constitutions.The court denied the motion, and defendant moved for a mistrial, which was also denied.Despite Piatt's invocation of his constitutional right, defendant's attorney cross-examined Piatt on a variety of issues, including Piatt's prior assaults and drug convictions, his plea agreement, the motorcycle culture, his motivations for testifying, the conversations that he had with defendant while in jail, and his conversations with detectives.

At the conclusion of the state's case-in-chief, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on Counts 2 and 3—solicitation to murder Piatt and solicitation to assault Piatt—arguing that the state failed to present evidence that defendant solicited Van Alstine to do anything illegal and that no solicitation occurred because the solicitee, the Outsiders, never received the DVD.The court denied defendant's motion.Defendant ultimately was convicted on all counts.¹

On appeal, defendant renews his arguments, assigning as error the trial court's denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal, to strike Piatt's testimony, and for mistrial.In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior conviction, which we reject on the basis of OEC 404(3), without further discussion.We discuss each of his other assignments in turn.

We begin with defendant's first assignment of error, the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on Counts 2 and 3 for solicitation of Van Alstine.When reviewing a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we determine whether, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.State v. Lotches,331 Or. 455, 498, 17 P.3d 1045(2000), cert. den.,534 U.S. 833, 122 S.Ct. 82, 151 L.Ed.2d 45(2001).When the facts are not in dispute, as in this case, we review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal as a question of law.State v. Nollen,196 Or.App. 141, 144, 100 P.3d 788(2004).

The state charged defendant with soliciting Van Alstine to “unlawfully and intentionally cause the death of Barry Piatt” or “unlawfully and intentionally and knowingly cause serious physical injury to Barry Piatt.”Defendant contends that, because he did not ask Van Alstine personally to murder or harm Piatt, he should have been acquitted of those counts.Defendant's argument requires us to interpret the solicitation statute, ORS 161.435(1).When reviewing a statute, our task is to discern the legislature's intent.PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries,317 Or. 606, 610, 859 P.2d 1143(1993).We first look at the text and context of the statute, and will consider legislative history if it appears useful to the court's analysis.State v. Gaines,346 Or. 160, 172, 206 P.3d 1042(2009).

Solicitation is defined in ORS 161.435(1):

“A person commits the crime of solicitation if with the intent of causing another to engage in specific conduct constituting a crime punishable as a felony or as a Class A misdemeanor or an attempt to commit such felony or Class A misdemeanor the person commands or solicits such other person to engage in that conduct.”

The statute thus provides that a person is guilty of solicitation if that person “commands or solicits” another person to engage in specific criminal conduct that is either a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.

Defendant argues that, under State v. Lee,105 Or.App. 329, 804 P.2d 1208, rev. den.,311 Or. 427, 812 P.2d 827(1991), he could not be convicted of solicitation because the Outsiders never received the DVD or indictment.In Lee, the police intercepted a letter that the defendant sent to his friend soliciting him to commit a robbery.We vacated the solicitation conviction because “a completed communication is required to prove the crime of solicitation.”Id. at 333, 804 P.2d 1208.In defendant's view, his conviction should also be vacated because he did not complete a communication with the Outsiders.

The state responds by arguing that Lee does not apply, and the issue here is whether defendant engaged another to perform a criminal act, even if the details of how the crime was to be committed were not specified.State v. Johnson,202 Or.App. 478, 485, 123 P.3d 304(2005), rev. den.,340 Or. 158, 130 P.3d 787(2006).We agree with the state.

Defendant's reliance on Lee is misplaced.We agree that defendant did not complete a communication with the Outsiders and cannot be convicted for soliciting it or its members.However, the state did not charge defendant with soliciting the Outsiders.Rather, the state charged defendant with, and the jury convicted him of, soliciting Van Alstine to cause Piatt's death or injury.We reject defendant's suggestion that he placed his request in the hands of a messenger, an intermediary, to simply deliver a message to a third party.Although an intermediary who unknowingly delivers a message soliciting criminal acts would not commit a crime,...