State v. Egeland, 320 P.3d 657

Defendant, with legitimate Oxycontin prescriptions, was charged with multiple counts of unlawful delivery of hydrocodone; 10 counts linked to his Oxycontin prescription were dismissed and 11 counts went to the jury.
The principal witness for the state, LM (a nurse practitioner and admitted hydrocodone addict), testified she obtained hydrocodone from defendant between 2007 and late 2009 and described specific exchanges at a school book fair and a school volleyball game in 2009.
A recorded police interview of defendant included statements that he bought and delivered pills to LM, was reimbursed in cash, and met LM at various public places (including a school), but he denied exchanging drugs for medical services.
Defendant testified at trial that he stopped delivering medications after 2007, denied exchanging drugs for medical services, and said one school meeting related to test results, not a drug exchange; his girlfriend corroborated parts of his account.
Defendant requested UCrJI 1056 (the accomplice corroboration instruction). The trial court declined, saying the tape-recorded statements and other evidence provided sufficient corroboration. Jury convicted on three counts (each 10-2); several counts resulted in acquittal, hung juries, or dismissal. Trial court also instructed on accomplice status and distrust of accomplice testimony but did not give the statutory corroboration instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing UCrJI 1056 (accomplice corroboration instruction)	State concedes error but argues it was harmless because other instructions and evidence (including defendant's recorded statements) supplied corroboration	Defendant argues the instruction was necessary; absence likely affected verdict given conflicting evidence	Error to refuse instruction; not harmless — reversed and remanded
Whether evidence before jury sufficiently corroborated accomplice testimony under ORS 136.440(1)	State: corroboration standard modest; jury likely relied on defendant's out-of-court statements and other evidence	Defendant: corroboration requirement meaningful; evidence was contradictory/equivocal and did not reliably connect him to charged acts	Court: corroboration lacking as to contested 2009 incidents; evidence conflicted, so error likely affected outcome
Whether other jury instructions cured omission of UCrJI 1056	State: other given instructions adequately addressed subject	Defendant: absent instruction left jurors unaware of statutory corroboration stringency	Court: instructions did not adequately address corroboration requirement; omission not cured
Whether nonunanimous guilty verdicts and unanimity instruction errors required relief	Defendant raised additional unanimity claims	State defended convictions	Court rejected those assignments of error without further discussion (citing precedent)

State v. Worthington, 251 Or. App. 110 (review standard for refusing requested instruction)
State v. Black, 208 Or. App. 719 (accomplice instruction error harmless where uncontroverted corroborative evidence existed)
State v. Ortiz-Rodriguez, 229 Or. App. 373 (accomplice testimony insufficient where corroboration did not connect defendant to specific charged acts)
State v. Montez, 324 Or. 343 (no error if court's instructions adequately address requested instruction subject)
State v. Tidwell, 259 Or. App. 152 (presumption jurors follow instructions unless overwhelming probability otherwise)
Hutcheson v. City of Keizer, 169 Or. App. 510 (harmless-error analysis for instructions)
Waterway Terminals v. P. S. Lord, 256 Or. 361 (harmless-error standard regarding jury impressions of law)
State v. Reynolds, 160 Or. 445 (corroboration must do more than raise suspicion; uncertain/equivocal corroboration insufficient)