State v. Badillo, 317 P.3d 315

Defendant planned to kidnap neighbors’ infant and pass it off as her own after soliciting two individuals to help.
She solicited a 17-year-old and later Perrizo, undercover state troopers, to break into the neighbors’ dwelling to abduct the infant.
Defendant provided $1,000, directions, and guns, and assured that no one would be harmed; she was arrested in a parking lot during meetings.
Bench trial convictions included attempted first-degree burglary and two counts of solicitation to commit second-degree kidnapping, among others.
On appeal, defendant argued the evidence failed for attempted burglary and that convictions for inchoate crimes should merge under ORS 161.485(2); the court rejected both challenges and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence for attempted first-degree burglary?	defendant contends the state relied on a flawed accomplice theory and insufficient substantial step.	defendant asserts no principal attempted burglary and inadequate substantial step.	Yes; rational trier could find substantial step from defendant’s own conduct in soliciting and paying for the crime.
Should the inchoate convictions merge under ORS 161.485(2)?	state argues no merger since solicitations targeted separate commissions.	defendant argues all inchoate crimes designed to culminate in the same kidnapping should merge.	Solicitation of two different persons several days apart constituted two separate commissions; no merger required for the two solicitation convictions.

State v. Johnson, 202 Or App 478 (2005) (solicitation may qualify as a substantial step under Oregon law)
State v. Reynolds, 183 Or App 245 (2002) (elements of solicitation include intent to cause another to engage in conduct)
State v. Colmenares-Chavez, 244 Or App 339 (2011) (standard of review for merger decisions)