State v. Riley, 365 Or. 606

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court held that ORS 136.440(1) requires corroborating evidence independent of accomplice testimony and reaffirmed that rule as binding precedent. Because the independent evidence did not connect Riley to the charged offenses, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. ORS 136.440(1) requires corroborating evidence that is independent of the accomplice's testimony and that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.
2. The court declined to reconsider or abandon the independent-evidence rule because prior Oregon decisions interpreting the statute remain precedential despite predating PGE and because the State did not meet its substantial burden under stare decisis.
3. The evidence did not satisfy ORS 136.440(1) because, without relying on the accomplices' testimony, it did not tend to connect defendant with the attempted jewelry-store robbery and kidnapping or the attempted T-Mobile robbery.

Questions Presented

1. Whether ORS 136.440(1) requires corroborating evidence to be independent of accomplice testimony.
2. Whether Oregon precedent adopting the independent-evidence rule should be abandoned or reconsidered under the statutory-interpretation methodology of PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries and State v. Gaines.
3. Whether the evidence independent of the accomplices' testimony sufficiently tended to connect defendant with the charged attempted robbery and kidnapping offenses.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded