Oregon Supreme Court 08-25-11

by: Abassos • August 24, 2011 • no comments

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

• Accomplice Liability - The Natural and Probable Consequences Instruction is Bad Law

The Oregon Supreme Ct today upheld the Appellate Court in rejecting the natural and probable consequences jury instruction for accomplice liability. Accomplice liability requires specific intent. The natural and probable consequences instruction seemed to say that, in addition to the crimes for which such intent applied, any other crimes that naturally followed were also appropriate for accomplice liability. Such a theory was and continues to be incompatible with Oregon law. State v. Lopez-Minjarez

That's the big takeaway from today's opinion: that the natural and probable consequences instruction is based on bad law and should not be used. Ever.

The rest of the opinion is dedicated to a harmless error analysis to determine which of Mr. Lopez-Minjarez' convictions, if any, should be reversed. The Court finds that the first crime (chronologically) for which defendant was convicted, a burglary, could not have been affected by the bad instruction. The jury could not have found that the burglary was the natural and probable consequence of a prior crime that defendant intended because there was no prior crime alleged. In addition, there was a kidnapping charge in which defendant essentially admitted to being a principal. All the other convictions though, including murder and felony murder, must be reversed because the jury could have believed that defendant did not have the required intent but that the crimes were the natural consequence of either the kidnapping or the burglary. Because the jury could have based its convictions on a theory consistent with the jury instructions but inconsistent with the law, the error was prejudicial.