State v. E. L.-A. S

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. E. L.-A. S

343 P.3d 1285, 269 Or. App. 171, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 144

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 11, 2015

Docket1300213; Petition Number 13JU252; A156419

StatusPublished

This text of 343 P.3d 1285 (State v. E. L.-A. S) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. E. L.-A. S, 343 P.3d 1285, 269 Or. App. 171, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 144 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Youth appeals a judgment finding her to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute theft in the third degree, ORS 164.043. The state’s theory at trial was that youth aided and abetted two boys who stole sandwiches from a store. On appeal, youth argues that the evidence established, at most, that she was present when the boys took the sandwiches and did not stop them — conduct insufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Holloway, 102 Or App 553, 556, 795 P2d 589 (1990) (discussing the requirements for accomplice liability); see also State v. J. M. M., 268 Or App 699, 705, 342 P3d 1122 (2015) (presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to establish accomplice liability). The state, in response, concedes that “the evidence in the record is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that youth aided and abetted her associates in the theft of sandwiches,” and that the judgment must be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the judgment.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Youth appeals a judgment finding her to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute theft in the third degree, ORS 164.043. The state’s theory at trial was that youth aided and abetted two boys who stole sandwiches from a store. On appeal, youth argues that the evidence established, at most, that she was present when the boys took the sandwiches and did not stop them — conduct insufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Holloway, 102 Or App 553, 556, 795 P2d 589 (1990) (discussing the requirements for accomplice liability); see also State v. J. M. M., 268 Or App 699, 705, 342 P3d 1122 (2015) (presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to establish accomplice liability). The state, in response, concedes that “the evidence in the record is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that youth aided and abetted her associates in the theft of sandwiches,” and that the judgment must be reversed. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the judgment.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 P.3d 1285, 269 Or. App. 171, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-e-l-a-s-orctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack