State v. Wilson, 240 Or. App. 475

Defendant Wilson was convicted by bench trial of second-degree theft; conviction rested on a theory that he aided or abetted after the fact, which the court treated as a valid basis for accomplice liability.
Crates were stolen from Plaid Pantry; Down loaded 20–40 crates into Wilson’s vehicle while Wilson was inside the store; crates were later disposed of at the quarry.
Down pleaded guilty; Wilson testified he did not know crates were in his car until unloading at the quarry.
Trial court focused on whether Wilson’s later disposal of the crates constituted aiding or abetting after the fact, despite defense objections that such conduct is not a crime.
On appeal, the court held that aiding or abetting after the fact is not a crime, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial to address a viable theory of culpability if supported by the evidence.
The decision discusses preservation: defense counsel explicitly objected to the theory in closing, preserving the legal issue for appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by convicting on an aiding-after-the-fact theory	State argued Wilson aided or abetted the theft via later conduct	Wilson did not intend to promote the theft and after-the-fact disposal cannot support aiding or abetting	Yes; error to convict on after-the-fact aiding
Whether the issue was properly preserved for review	State says issue unpreserved after letter opinion	Defense preserved by closing-argument objection highlighting the error	Preserved; review allowed on the legal error
Whether aiding and abetting liability can attach based on post-crime conduct	Post-crime disposal could show intent to promote the crime	Post-crime actions cannot establish aiding or abetting; only prior planning/participation counts	Post-crime conduct cannot constitute aiding or abetting; requires prior participation

State v. Watts, 60 Or. App. 217 (1982) (subsequent receipt did not aid the taking; law on timing of aiding/abetting)
State v. Moriarty, 87 Or. App. 465 (1987) (post-crime actions cannot alone constitute aiding or abetting; but may be evidence of earlier aiding)
State v. Rosser, 162 Or. 293 (1939) (aid and abet refers to encouragement in the commission, not after the crime is complete)
State v. Spears, 196 P.3d 1037 (2008) (asportation degree in theft by taking; relevance to timing of theft elements)
Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209 (2008) (preservation and procedure guiding appellate review of errors)