State v. Ryder

Under ORS 161.155(2)(b) and 163.165(1)(e), the least degree of collusion is enough to sustain a conviction of aiding and abetting a crime; however, mere presence during the crime is not enough to sustain such a conviction.

Defendant appealed his conviction for aiding and abetting an assault when his role was simply filming the assault, not engaging in the actual acts of violence. Defendant, a father to one of the four assailants, colluded to aid in seeing that the victim was attacked and that the attack was caught on film. At no point did Defendant actually participate in the attack; however, he supplied a means to lure the victim and filmed the incident. Defendant argued that under ORS 163.165(1)(e), a conviction can only be found where the person actually caused the infliction of injury and to find him actually liable would undermine the ORS 161.155(2)(b) aid and abet theory. The Court, however, held that there is nothing in ORS 163.165(1)(e) that would necessarily prohibit the person from being liable under the aid and abet theory found in ORWS 161.155(2)(b). As for the evidence, the Court found that the trial court did not err in its own finding and that there was enough for the conviction to stand. Affirmed.