State v. Parkerson

“[I]f there is sufficient evidence to charge a witness of the crime with which a defendant is charged, then the trial court ‘may determine, as a matter of law, that the witness is an accomplice.” State v. Torres, 207 Or App 335, 359-60, 142 P3d 99 (2006) (quoting Oatney, 335 Or at 284)).

Defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated murder with a firearm and aggravated assault with a firearm. Defendant appealed, and assigned error to the lower court’s denial of Defendant’s request to give the accomplice-as-a-matter-of-law jury instruction. Defendant argued that the “fact that a grand jury had found probable cause to indict Pascoe for the two offenses at issue necessarily proves that there was sufficient evidence to charge Pascoe with the crimes with which defendant was charged with.” The State argued that there must have been evidence presented at trial to support an accomplice-as-a-matter-of-law instruction and Defendant failed to present such evidence. “[I]f there is sufficient evidence to charge a witness of the crime with which a defendant is charged, then the trial court ‘may determine, as a matter of law, that the witness is an accomplice.” State v. Torres, 207 Or App 335, 359-60, 142 P3d 99 (2006) (quoting Oatney, 335 Or at 284)). The Court held that the trial court did err by declining to issue Defendant’s requested instructions because even though Pascoe’s charges were dismissed, a grand jury still found probable cause to indict Pascoe for the same crimes as Defendant. However, the Court held the error was harmless. Affirmed.