State v. Holcomb
246 Or. App. 687
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Holcomb, convicted of first-degree burglary after bench trial, argues the trial court erred in denying his judgment of acquittal.
- Holcomb was charged with first-degree burglary as an aider and abettor to Bobbi Carson's entry into Caldwell's residence.
- Holcomb was also charged with second-degree burglary and first-degree theft for Carson's entry into Caldwell's garage on the same property.
- Carson entered the garage, took items, then proceeded to Caldwell's residence; Caldwell confronted Carson and police were notified.
- Holcomb drove Carson to Caldwell's property, remained in the vehicle at times, and later left with items Carson had taken, returning to town to avoid police.
- The trial court found Holcomb not guilty of the garage-related counts but guilty of the residence burglary; reasoned he knew Carson was involved in taking items from the house but not from the garage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-crime conduct can show aiding and abetting | Holcomb contends he merely accompanied Carson and did not know of the burglary, so post-crime acts cannot prove aiding. | Holcomb argues there is no evidence he knew of the residence burglary and his presence cannot establish aiding. | Sufficient evidence supported aiding and abetting for the residence burglary. |
| Whether there was sufficient knowledge that items were from the residence | State contends Holcomb knew or should have known items in the car were taken from the residence. | Holcomb argues no proof he knew items belonged to Caldwell or were stolen from the house. | Yes; reasonable inference supported knowledge that items in the vehicle came from the residence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moriarty, 87 Or.App. 465 (1987) (post-crime conduct can support aiding and abetting when evidence before implies collaboration)
- State v. Hightower, 17 Or.App. 112 (1974) (accomplice liability extends to actions before and after the crime)
- State v. Boone, 213 Or.App. 242 (2007) (presence near scene plus transportation of stolen items supports aiding and abetting)
- State v. Holloway, 102 Or.App. 553 (1990) (mere presence does not prove aiding and abetting)
- State v. Tilford, 41 Or.App. 433 (1979) (possession of proceeds after the fact can support burglary liability)
- State v. Jackson, 64 Or.App. 667 (1983) (evidence placing defendant in proximity to crime can support liability)
- State v. Brake, 99 Or. 310 (1921) (fruit of the crime in possesion can corroborate accomplice liability)
- State v. Moriarty, 87 Or.App. 465 (1987) (see Moriarty above; cited for aiding-and-abetment framework)