State v. Baker

“The corroborative evidence must connect the Defendant with the charged crime, however, and it must do so in a way that does not depend on reference to the accomplice’s testimony.” State v. Riley, 365 Or 44, 48, 443 P3d 610 (2019).

Defendant appealed a conviction for Theft in the First Degree and Unlawful Entry into a Motor Vehicle.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on both counts because the State’s case depended entirely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony, which did not satisfy the requirements of ORS 136.440(1). On appeal, Defendant argued the State failed to present sufficient evidence that corroborated the accomplice's testimony and that the only potential corroboration came from a witness's testimony, which offered nothing to connect Defendant to the crimes. In response, the State argued that the trial court correctly denied Defendant’s motion because all that is required for ORS 136.441(1) is some evidence connecting the Defendant with the crime, even if said evidence is slight or circumstantial. “The corroborative evidence must connect the Defendant with the charged crime, however, and it must do so in a way that does not depend on reference to the accomplice’s testimony.” State v. Riley, 365 Or 44, 48, 443 P3d 610 (2019). The Court held that, after viewing the evidence in its totality, it was not sufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony because the State did not present evidence that Defendant was connected to the crimes, absent the accomplice's testimony, therefore failing to meet ORS 136.440(1). Reversed.