State v. Phillips, 242 Or. App. 253

Defendant was convicted by jury of third-degree assault under ORS 163.165(1)(e) for injuring the victim while being aided by another person actually present.
Three assailants attacked two brothers; dispute whether defendant personally punched the victim or merely aided by holding the victim and/or preventing aid.
Trial court instructed on third-degree assault and on aiding and abetting; defendant sought a Boots-style concurrence instruction but was denied.
State argued defendant could be guilty either as the person who inflicted injury or as the aider present; defendant preserved only an objection to the aiding theory, not the accomplice liability instruction.
Court held Boots concurrence not required because Pine governs in this single-crime context; an actual injury and aiding present are two alternative methods to meet the single 'causes' element.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by instructing on aiding and abetting as a separate route to conviction	State argued instruction properly authorized conviction under either theory.	Phillips contends the instruction wrongly allowed conviction without requiring personal injury.	Not preserved; no reversible error.
Whether Boots concurrence instruction was required	Boots principle applies when multiple theories correspond to different crimes.	Boots required a unanimity/concurrence on a single factual scenario.	Boots instruction not required; King controls that multiple ways to commit a single crime need not require such concurrence.
Whether third-degree assault can be proved by alternative methods (actual injury vs aiding and present) without joint unanimity	Pine allows aiding-present as sufficient if it causes injury or is so intertwined as to cause injury.	If not the principal, cannot be convicted of assault III; unanimity on the theory is required.	Pine governs; alternate methods to meet the 'causes' element do not require Boots-like concurrence.

State v. Boots, 308 Or. 371 (1989) (unanimity required on facts required by a single crime when multiple aggravating theories exist)
State v. King, 316 Or. 437 (1993) (concurrence not required where multiple subsections describe a single offense)
State v. Pine, 336 Or. 194 (2003) (aided-on-scene assistance without causing injury cannot support third-degree assault)
State v. Merida-Medina, 221 Or. App. 614 (2008) (aid of another may not render accomplice liability where conduct is incidental to crime)
State v. Lotches, 331 Or. 455 (2000) ( Boots principle applied to multiple aggravating factors; unanimity on crime required)
State v. White, 115 Or. App. 104 (1992) (alternate acts to accomplish a single element may not require unanimity)