State v. Wilson
2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 101
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Wilson and a friend loaded crates from Plaid Pantry into Wilson's car during a theft by Down.
- Down later unloaded crates at a quarry; some crates were burned or discarded after legging the theft.
- Wilson claimed he did not know about the crates or Down's theft until after arriving at the quarry.
- Jeffers (store) reported missing crates; Ramirez investigated; Selvidge corroborated Down's involvement.
- Trial court convicted Wilson of second-degree theft, based on an aiding or abetting after the fact theory.
- On appeal, court held that aiding or abetting after the fact is not a valid theory for second-degree theft.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aiding or abetting after the fact supports liability | Wilson was culpable as accomplice due to after-the-fact conduct | Aiding/abetting after the fact is not a crime and cannot sustain conviction | Erroneous theory; conviction reversed |
| Preservation of the challenge to the theory used | Error not preserved after letter opinion | Preserved via closing argument objections | Preserved; review allowed |
| Whether the record could support conviction on a different theory | Evidence could show accomplice liability or theft by receiving | Remaining options do not fit the charged theory and were not properly charged | Remand for new trial on proper theory |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watts, 60 Or. App. 217 (1982) (subsequent receipt did not aid the taking; after-the-fact actions insufficient)
- State v. Moriarty, 87 Or. App. 465 (1987) (post-crime actions cannot alone constitute aiding or abetting)
- State v. Rosser, 162 Or. 293 (1939) (aid and abet refers to encouragement before or during crime, not after)
- Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209 (2008) (preservation requires clear objection to error to allow correction)
- Andrews, 174 Or. App. 354 (2001) (reversal/remand when conviction rests on legally improper theory)
- State v. Schodrow, 187 Or. App. 224 (2003) (preservation via closing argument alerts court to asserted error)
- State v. Spears, 223 Or. App. 675 (2008) (asportation degree required; after-the-fact actions viewed contextually)