State v. Stowell

“[I]f the state seeks to hold a defendant liable either as the principal or as an aider and abettor and if a party requests an appropriate instruction, the trial court should instruct the jury that at least 10 jurors must agree on each legislatively defined element necessary to find the defendant liable under one theory or the other.” State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606 (2013).

Defendant appealed a conviction of first-degree burglary, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and first-degree theft.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred for not issuing a jury instruction on whether he was directly liable as a principal or an accomplice and an instruction regarding the mens rea required for elements of the theft charge.  The State argued it was harmless error not giving a jury instruction on Defendant’s role in the crime, and it was not necessary that they prove the mens rea in respect to the value of the property.  “[I]f the state seeks to hold a defendant liable either as the principal or as an aider and abettor and if a party requests an appropriate instruction, the trial court should instruct the jury . . .” State v. Phillips, 354 Or 598, 606 (2013).  First, the Court found that since the State provided two theories for the crime that it was necessary for the jury to agree on a theory and should have been instructed as such because the theories could result in different charges.  Second, the Court found that the value of the property is not an element of the crime that requires a certain mens rea.  Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred by not issuing the jury instruction regarding principle and accomplice liability, but did not err in failing to issue the instruction regarding the mens rea.  Reversed and remanded.