State v. Bartlett

Where defendant's acts do not deprive a service provider of a right to payment, under ORS 164.125 there is no theft of property and therefore a robbery has not been committed.

Defendant scuffled with a taxi driver and in the scuffle escaped without paying for the taxi service. He was arrested, charged, and convicted at trial for third-degree robbery and theft of services. Defendant contends that a taxi ride is a service and not property, therefore there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the third-degree robbery. State argued that a taxi ride service is a chose-in-action, which is defined as a property interest. The Court disagrees with the contention that the chose-in-action property right is extinguished. The Court held that a chose-in-action is the interest in a property right, which is the right to payment. Because defendant's acts did not deprive the taxi driver of the chose-in-action, that the taxi driver has retained their property interest in the right to payment. Judgment of conviction for robbery reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.