State v. Alonzo
249 Or. App. 149
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Alonzo was convicted of multiple offenses including unauthorized use of a vehicle, trafficking in stolen vehicles, two counts of first-degree theft, first-degree forgery, possession of a stolen vehicle, and first-degree criminal mischief.
- She appeals challenging the jury instruction that accomplices are responsible for acts or crimes that are natural and probable consequences of the planned crime.
- The issue centers on preservation under ORCP 59 H(1) and whether the instruction can be reviewed as plain error after non-preservation.
- The State argues the issue is unpreserved and not subject to plain error review; the defense argues Lopez-Minjarez requires correction.
- The court holds the claim is unreviewable due to non-preservation under ORCP 59 H(1) and affirms the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the error was preserved for review | Alonzo (State) | Alonzo contends error under Lopez-Minjarez | Not reviewable; unpreserved under ORCP 59 H(1) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 350 Or. 576 (Or. 2011) (plain error review not allowed when not preserved)
- State v. Guardipee, 239 Or.App. 44 (Or. App. 2010) (ORCP 59 H bars review when instruction given on unpreserved error)
- State v. Toth, 213 Or.App. 505 (Or. App. 2007) (plain error review limitations for unpreserved errors)
- State v. Phillips, 242 Or.App. 253 (Or. App. 2011) (unpreserved challenge to accomplice liability not subject to plain error review)
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376 (Or. 1991) (discretion to review errors under certain conditions)