State v. Martin-Thanislaus

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 05-15-2024
  • Case #: A178060
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Kistler, S. J. for the court; Kamins J.; & Tookey P. J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A conspiracy to commit a crime requires proof that, with the requisite intent, two or more people agreed to commit a crime punishable as a felony. ORS 161.450(1). A conspiracy to tamper with a witness requires proof that a person agreed (and intended) to seek to induce a witness either to offer false sworn testimony in an official proceeding or to unlawfully withhold sworn testimony in such a proceeding. ORS 162.285

Defendant appealed her conviction, contending that the trial court incorrectly denied her motion for judgment of acquittal. She argued that no reasonable juror could conclude she agreed to induce a witness to provide false testimony or unlawfully withhold testimony in an official proceeding. Under ORS 161.450(1), a conspiracy to commit a crime requires evidence that two or more people, with the necessary intent, agreed to commit a felony. A conspiracy to tamper with a witness requires proof that a person agreed (and intended) to seek to induce a witness either to offer false sworn testimony in an official proceeding or to unlawfully withhold sworn testimony in such a proceeding (ORS 162.285). The Court found that the trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for acquittal on both the tampering and conspiracy charges. The Court reasoned that no reasonable juror could infer from the evidence that the defendant was attempting to persuade a witness to give false testimony or to unlawfully withhold it. Instead, the evidence indicated that the defendant merely asked the witness to drop the charges. The Court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion, reversing the conviction.

Advanced Search


Back to Top