Wade v. Brockamp, 342 P.3d 142

Petitioner was convicted after a joint trial with Pray on multiple robbery and assault counts under an accomplice liability theory.
The jury instruction given to the jury stated that an aider or abetter is responsible for any acts or crimes that are a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime (Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction 1052).
Petitioner’s trial counsel did not object to this instruction.
State theory did not link petitioner directly to the weapon or to the assault, focusing on accomplice liability.
State v. Lopez-Minjarez (2011) held the natural-and-probable-consequence instruction was incorrect law; petitioner sought post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Post-conviction court found that counsel’s failure to object was deficient under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution and likely prejudicial, and granted relief; the court otherwise applied federal Strickland prejudice standard but concluded state law was violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did trial counsel's failure to object to the incorrect instruction constitute deficient performance?	Petitioner (via post-conviction court)	Ortga argues anticipation of Lopez-Minjarez was unreasonable	Yes; counsel's failure was deficient under Oregon Constitution.
Was there prejudice under Oregon law from the instruction error?	The instruction affected the theory of liability and juror understanding	Prejudice under state law should be limited by federal standard	Yes; prejudice established under Article I, section 11.
Should the federal Strickland prejudice standard apply after state-law prejudice finding?	State constitution governs prejudice analysis	Federal standard should apply uniformly through Hayward/functional equivalence	Court applied state prejudice finding; noting equivalence but affirming state-law prejudice suffices.
Did Lopez-Minjarez control the outcome given pretrial booking and Anlauf?	Lopez-Minjarez invalidates the instruction; if objected, relief would follow	Counsel could have strategic reasons not to object	Yes; Lopez-Minjarez supports post-conviction relief where objection was not made.
Was post-conviction relief appropriate given trial strategy and Anlauf considerations?	Anlauf and statutory text warranted objection	Objection would be tactical with uncertain benefit	Affirmed relief; counsel’s objection was reasonably necessary.

State v. Lopez-Minjarez, 350 Or 576 (Or. 2011) (natural and probable consequences instruction misstated the law for accomplice liability)
State v. Anlauf, 164 Or App 672 (Or. App. 2000) (limits on conspiracy/aiders and abettors; rejects universal natural-consequence liability)
Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867 (1981) (professional skill/judgment standard for counsel; premise of adequate representation)
Burdge v. Palmateer, 338 Or 490 (2005) (counsel's performance evaluated from the attorney’s perspective at time of trial)
Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1 (2014) (state constitutional prejudice standard tied to federal standards via functional equivalence)