State v. Riley, 443 P.3d 610

The state challenged the interpretation of ORS 136.440(1), arguing the statute does not require corroborating evidence to be independent of accomplice testimony.
The court reviewed prior Oregon precedent and the statutory text to decide whether an "independent evidence" rule governs accomplice corroboration.
The state conceded that, if the independent evidence rule applies here, the corroboration requirement is not met.
The court examined multiple Oregon decisions interpreting the accomplice statute and comparative authority from other jurisdictions and treatises.
The court concluded the independent evidence rule is entrenched in Oregon law and the state failed to meet the heavy burden to overturn it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 136.440(1) requires corroboration independent of accomplice testimony	State: statute does not require strictly independent corroboration; prior references were unnecessary	Defendant: corroboration must be independent of accomplice testimony to satisfy statute	Court held the independent evidence rule is binding precedent and applies under ORS 136.440(1)
Whether prior Oregon cases (Scott, Brake, Reynolds) establish an independent-evidence rule	State: those cases did not establish or should not compel an independent-evidence rule	Defendant: those cases do establish the rule	Court held Scott, Brake, and Reynolds do establish the rule; it has continued in subsequent precedent
Whether the court should re-interpret the statute under PGE/Gaines methodology	State: asks for PGE-style statutory reinterpretation to abandon the rule	Defendant: stare decisis and prior interpretations bind court absent strong showing	Court declined to re-open statutory interpretation; stare decisis preserves prior construction
Application to facts: whether the available non-accomplice evidence connected defendant to crimes	State: evidence (e.g., items in SUV) corroborates accomplice accounts	Defendant: such evidence only confirms accomplices' conduct and not defendant's participation	Court held the non-accomplice evidence did not independently connect defendant to the offenses; convictions on those counts reversed

State v. Scott, 28 Or. 331 (1895) (articulated requirement that corroboration be independent of accomplice testimony)
State v. Brake, 99 Or. 310 (1921) (interpreted "other evidence" to require independence from accomplice testimony)
State v. Reynolds, 160 Or. 445 (1939) (held corroboration must be independently incriminating apart from accomplices' testimony)
State v. Caldwell, 241 Or. 355 (1965) (applied independent-evidence principle; corroboration found sufficient on facts)
State v. Walton, 311 Or. 223 (1991) (explained corroboration need only tend to connect defendant to offense and may be circumstantial)
State v. Washington, 355 Or. 612 (2014) (reiterated standards for ORS 136.440(1) and framed corroboration principles)
People v. Garton, 4 Cal. 5th 485 (2018) (California Supreme Court reaffirmed independent-evidence requirement under accomplice statute)