State v. Everett, 274 P.3d 297

Everett was charged with two counts of solicitation to commit aggravated murder and one to commit second-degree assault; he solicited Van Alstine to deliver to the Outsiders a DVD and an indictment showing Piatt’s witness status, intending they would kill or injure Piatt, who would otherwise testify against him.
Piatt, an Outsiders enforcer and police informant, testified at trial about the Outsiders and the risks to informants, and his prior convictions were admitted subject to limits.
Van Alstine, another inmate and informant, relayed Everett’s instruction to deliver the DVD and indictment to the Outsiders; Everett promised payment if delivery occurred.
Detectives recorded Piatt’s interview, and the state charged Everett with soliciting Van Alstine to cause Piatt’s death or injury; all solicitation counts were tried together.
Piatt invoked Fifth Amendment protection on cross-examination; Everett moved to strike Piatt’s testimony and for mistrial, which were denied; Everett was ultimately convicted on all counts.
The trial court denied Everett’s motions in limine regarding prior convictions; on appeal, Everett challenges the denial of judgment of acquittal on counts involving Piatt and the denial to strike/mistrial, but the appellate court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether solicitation of an intermediary can support conviction	Everett argues there was no direct solicitation of Piatt by him.	Everett contends the Outsiders never received the DVD/indictment; no direct solicitation.	Solicitation of an intermediary to deliver a message can support conviction if intermediary knows the crime.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying strike/mistrial over Fifth Amendment invocation	Piatt’s Fifth Amendment invocation should have led to striking testimony.	Defendant contends cross-examination was sufficiently possible; no abuse.	Court did not abuse discretion; sufficient cross-examination remained; no mistrial required.
Crawford applicability to Piatt’s testimony	Piatt’s out-of-court-like testimony should be excluded under Crawford.	Piatt testified at trial (not out-of-court); cross-examined; Crawford not applicable.	Crawford inapplicable; testimony admitted; no reversible error.

State v. Baker-Krofft, 239 P.3d 226 (Or. 2010) (interprets review of judgments of acquittal and evidence standards in appellate review)
State v. Lee, 804 P.2d 1208 (Or. App. 1991) (completed communication required for solicitation conviction; distinguish intermediary delivery scenario)
State v. Johnson, 123 P.3d 304 (Or. App. 2005) (solicitation to an intermediary to deliver message may support conviction despite no direct solicitation to target)
State v. Fitzgerald, 513 P.2d 817 (Or. App. 1973) (intermediary liability to crimes when delivering message aids and abets the crime)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; not applicable to testimony not hearsay or not testimonial under the circumstances)