A three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals -- Darleen Ortega, Joel DeVore and Chris Garrett -- ruled that a youth wasn't guilty of aiding and abetting his friends in a Douglas County church burglary.
(Oregon Judicial Department)
A juvenile defendant who listened to three of his friends devise a plan to burglarize a southern Oregon church -- then idly stood outside the church as his friends robbed it of valuables -- shouldn't have been found guilty of any crimes, the Oregon Court of Appeals said Wednesday.
The case points out an aspect of Oregon law that surprises some: Members of the general public have no legal obligation to stop crimes in progress or report them, noted the appeals court. The court then threw out the first-degree theft and second-degree burglary juvenile convictions against the defendant.
“Youth had no legal duty to refrain from being present at the scene, or to discourage the others from carrying out their plan to burglarize the church,” wrote the appeals court. “...Youth may be guilty of poor judgment, but the state did not prove him guilty of aiding and abetting a crime.”
The defendant is identified by the appeals court only by the initials J.M.M. His age and date of the break-in aren't mentioned in the opinion.
The appeals court noted that surveillance video from the night of the 10 p.m. Douglas County break-in showed J.M.M. standing outside the church and then leaving with his friends as they lugged away the stolen items. J.M.M. had told a police officer that he didn’t participate in the planning of the burglary, nor was he acting as a lookout who would have warned his friends if someone had been coming.
Although Oregon law is similar to that in many other states, some have enacted laws that require members of the general public to report crimes under specific circumstances.
Ohio requires bystanders to report felonies. Texas requires members of the public to report crimes that result in serious injury or death.
And California Penal Code 152.3 requires witnesses to report rapes or murders of children under age 14. In 2009, outraged individuals began an unsuccessful push to expand that law to cover older people after numerous bystanders witnessed or heard a two-hour-long gang rape of a 15-year-old girl outside a Bay Area homecoming dance, but failed to call police.
In the Oregon Court of Appeals case regarding J.M.M., police were soon summoned to the church. During a court hearing, a police officer testified to the following about his interrogation of J.M.M.:
PROSECUTOR: “Did he say if he was there when they planned it?”
OFFICER: “Yes, they were all—all parties were together when they—and everybody kind of leaned towards Michael, the head person on this whole thing, the one that kind of thought it up...”
PROSECUTOR: “And at any time did [youth] say that he told him it wasn’t a good idea, you shouldn’t do it?”
OFFICER: “Not to my recollection, no.”
PROSECUTOR: “...And he never said that he was forced to be there in any way?”
OFFICER: “No. ...I said ‘Do you understand this makes you part of the crime?’ And he goes ‘yes.’
Despite arguments to the contrary from J.M.M.'s defense attorney, Douglas County judge pro tempore Julie Zuver agreed with the officer and the prosecutor, and entered a verdict against J.M.M.
“It’s not okay to say, well, I’m just going to stand outside while you guys burglarize this and I know we’re all going to go and do this but I’m going to stand outside because I don’t want to be part of it,” Zuver said. “That’s not going to relieve one of one’s responsibility."
But Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the appeals court reiterated that there is no such “responsibility” under Oregon law. The panel heard the appeal in November 2014 in front of students at Roosevelt High School in North Portland.
The judges on the panel were Darleen Ortega, Joel DeVore and Chris Garrett.
-- Aimee Green
503-913-4197