State v. Everett

The crime of solicitation, ORS 161.435(1), occurs when a person solicits an intermediary to procure a third party to commit the intended crime so long as the intermediary is aware of that intended crime.

Defendant appealed a conviction for multiple counts of solicitation. Defendant claimed that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and (2) in refusing to strike testimony of one of the State’s witnesses who invoked his Fifth Amendment right. While in jail awaiting trial, Defendant attempted to solicit an inmate to deliver a DVD to gang members regarding a former inmate who had testified against Defendant. The inmate notified the police of the solicitation. The Court of Appeals found that the denial of acquittal was proper because, as a matter of law, a reasonable jury could find Defendant guilty of solicitation. Under ORS 161.435(1), "a person solicits an intermediary to procure a third party to commit the intended crime so long as the intermediary is aware of that intended crime." The Court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the State's witness' testimony because the witness had been available for cross-examination. Affirmed.