Legal Opinion

State v. Morgan

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 2017No. CC 11CR0886; CA A152692; SC S063831PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWalters, J.

In this case, we hold that, to establish that defendant was “aided by another person actually present” and therefore was guilty of second-degree robbery under ORS 164.405(l)(b), the state was required to prove that the person who aided defendant acted with the intent to facilitate the robbery. Because the state proffered evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have reached that conclusion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals. State v. Morgan, 274 Or App 792, 794, 364 P3d 690 (2015).

■ For reasons that we will explain, we summarize the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Comcast Corp. v. Department of RevenueOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. RoseOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. WalkerOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  4. State v. Gonzalez-ValenzuelaOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  5. State v. SimonovOregon Supreme Court · 2016

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Mason v. BCK Corp.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2018
  2. State v. ButterfieldCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  3. State v. HolsclawCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  4. Mitchell v. BOLICourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2026
  5. State v. StavenjordCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2018

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API