State v. Collin

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Ricki Scott Collin’s convictions for second-degree disorderly conduct and second-degree criminal trespass. The court held that the evidence was legally sufficient to deny Collin’s motion for judgment of acquittal and that the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that it had to agree on a theory of liability. The instructional error was harmless because there was little likelihood that it affected either verdict.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal because, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence permitted a rational factfinder to conclude that defendant recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm and engaged in physical conduct immediately likely to produce physical force.
2. The trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that it had to agree on a single theory of liability for each count when the court's response to the jury's question presented both principal and aiding-and-abetting theories for all charges.
3. The plain instructional error was harmless as to both the disorderly-conduct and criminal-trespass convictions because there was little likelihood that the error affected the verdicts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support second-degree disorderly conduct and therefore whether the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
2. Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that it had to concur on a single theory of liability—principal or aiding and abetting—for the disorderly-conduct and criminal-trespass counts.
3. Whether the instructional error was harmless.

Disposition

affirmed