State v. Wilson
Decision Date | 02 February 2011 |
Docket Number | 07C50549; A140479. |
Citation | 248 P.3d 10,240 Or.App. 475 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.Chet Michael WILSON, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jedediah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and ARMSTRONG, Judge.HASELTON, P.J.
Defendant, who was convicted following a bench trial of second-degree theft, appeals. He assigns error to the trial court's determination that he committed second-degree theft by “Aiding or Abetting after the fact.” In particular, defendant contends that, even viewing the evidence most favorably to the state, the theory on which the trial court expressly predicated his conviction was inapposite as a matter of law. We agree with defendant, and, accordingly, we reverse his conviction and remand for further proceedings.
On appeal from a judgment of conviction, we recount the facts in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Andrews, 174 Or.App. 354, 356, 27 P.3d 137 (2001), abrogated in part on other grounds by State v. Rutley, 202 Or.App. 639, 645, 123 P.3d 334 (2005), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 343 Or. 368, 171 P.3d 361 (2007).1 Early the morning of September 26, 2007, defendant and his friend, Down, drove to a Plaid Pantry in Salem, on their way to an outdoor party at a local quarry. Defendant, who was driving, backed his vehicle into a parking space on the north end of the parking lot, near where some plastic soda and milk crates were stored. The back “hood” to defendant's trunk was open. Jeffers, the Plaid Pantry employee working that morning, thought that defendant's choice of parking spots was odd because there were plenty of parking spaces available immediately in front of the store.
At the Plaid Pantry, defendant and Down encountered Selvidge, a friend of theirs. Defendant and Down walked into the Plaid Pantry. Down “walk[ed] around” the store, acting “strangely” and “looking directly” at Jeffers. After a few moments, Down went back outside while defendant stayed to purchase beer. While defendant was still inside, Down loaded between 20 and 40 of the plastic crates into the back of defendant's vehicle.2 About half an hour after defendant, Down, and Selvidge had left, Jeffers noticed that the crates were missing and called the police.
After leaving the Plaid Pantry, defendant, Down, and Selvidge proceeded to the quarry, where the party was taking place. There, Down unloaded the crates. Down burned a couple of the crates in a bonfire, but kicked most of them into some bushes. Defendant and some other people at the party also used a few of the crates for sitting on.
Salem Police Officer Ramirez, who had interviewed Jeffers at the Plaid Pantry about the theft, encountered defendant, Down, and Selvidge at the quarry about an hour later that same morning.3 Defendant told Ramirez that he did not take the crates and that he did not know that Down had loaded the crates into his vehicle until after they arrived at the quarry. Selvidge confirmed that only Down had loaded the crates into defendant's vehicle.
Ultimately, the state charged defendant and Down with second-degree theft, ORS 164.045 (2007), amended by Or. Laws 2009, ch. 11, § 12; Or. Laws 2009, ch. 16, § 2.4 Down pleaded guilty, and defendant opted for a trial to the court. After Jeffers, Ramirez, and Selvidge testified regarding the facts recounted above, Down testified that defendant did not know that he (Down) had stolen the crates and put them into defendant's vehicle. Defendant also testified, stating that he did not know about the crates until Down started unloading them at the quarry.
At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed the parties on how to frame their closing arguments:
“And the second one is * * * whether or not [defendant] actively participated in the theft at the store; once he learned that those crates were in his trunk by, I guess, allowing Mr. Down to put them in the fire or use them for seats or throw them away, even though they were Mr. Down's, is that aiding and abetting such that it makes him guilty of the crime?”
The state responded by contending that defendant was guilty of the second-degree theft, pursuant to ORS 161.155(2)(b),5 because he “aid [ed] or abet[ted]” in Down's commission of the crime. In so arguing, the state contended that either defendant's conduct at the Plaid Pantry, e.g., parking on the north end of the Plaid Pantry parking lot near where the crates were stored, or defendant's conduct at the quarry, e.g., allowing the crates to be burned, was independently sufficient to establish his culpability.
Defendant countered that (a) there was reasonable doubt as to whether he had acted either as a principal or as an accomplice while at the Plaid Pantry and (b) defendant's conduct at the quarry, even if he acted at that point with knowledge that the crates were stolen, was legally insufficient to establish culpability for second-degree theft. In particular, in response to the trial court's question regarding defendant's possible accomplice liability based on his conduct at the quarry, defense counsel argued:
“[I]n [the] aid and abet statute, [ORS] 161.155, there's still that important element of intent. [Defendant] would have had to at least intend to help the other guys steal the crates. He has to have had the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime.
“ * * * * *
(Emphasis added.)
The trial court, still focusing on defendant's conduct at the quarry, highlighted its concern by positing the following hypothetical:
“THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you this question, though, and give you this fact pattern. * * *
“ * * * * *
“ * * * [A] friend of mine come[s] to me and say[s], Or maybe he doesn't even say that. But he just walked up: ‘Here's a bag of money.’ And I decide, even in good faith I say to myself, ‘I don't want to get caught with this stuff.’ So I destroy it, I burn it. Okay?
“Haven't I now aided and abetted a bank robbery by permanently depriving the victim of that money? And I guess that's where I'm coming from is that—* * * let's accept Mr. Down's testimony for the sake of this discussion that [defendant] had no idea that Mr. Down was putting those milk cartons in the back of his car; just flat didn't know it.
“ * * * * *
“Once [defendant] gained that knowledge and he allowed and/or participated in the utilization of those milk cartons, whether it's burning them, throwing them over the side or using them as chairs, isn't that aiding and abetting?”
The following colloquy ensued:
“ * * * * *
“ * * * [S]o let's assume that the aiding and abetting * * * is frankly allowing the fruits of the crime, the crates, to be disposed of by burning them or throwing them away. But here's the question to the State. * * *
“ * * * [O]nce [defendant] determined, knew that there were stolen crates in his car, how do I find the intent that by letting them be burned or thrown away that that is the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime?
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Barboe
...judge a chance to consider the legal contention or to correct an error already made.” (Emphasis added.)); cf. State v. Wilson, 240 Or.App. 475, 484–85, 248 P.3d 10 (2011) (finding that the defendant's argument that the court in a bench trial relied upon an improper theory of liability was p......
-
John Hyland Const., Inc. v. Williamsen & Bleid, Inc.
...objection or otherwise dispute the court's fact-based reasoning when it announced its ruling from the bench. Cf. State v. Wilson, 240 Or.App. 475, 484-85, 248 P.3d 10 (2011) (defendant's appellate argument was preserved when, in colloquy during closing argument in a bench trial, "the trial ......
-
State v. Nicholson, A158526
...exhibit. That printout indicates that the motion to dismiss the FAPA order was filed the same day.4 See, e.g. , State v. Wilson , 240 Or.App. 475, 484–86, 248 P.3d 10 (2011) (where defense counsel in closing argument in bench trial explicitly informed court that, if it found certain facts, ......
-
State v. McDougal
...cases, State v. Barboe , 253 Or. App. 367, 290 P.3d 833 (2012), rev. den. , 353 Or. 714, 303 P.3d 943 (2013), and State v. Wilson , 240 Or. App. 475, 248 P.3d 10 (2011). In Barboe , the defendant was convicted, following a bench trial, of fraudulent use of a credit card. 253 Or. App. at 369......