State v. Owens

I do not agree with the majority that either ORS 161.067(1) or (2) precludes the merger of defendant’s convictions. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

The majority correctly notes that an attempted theft, as well as a completed one, can be the predicate for a robbery conviction. ORS 164.395(1). It does not follow, however, that the theft statute requires proof of an element, a completed taking, that the robbery statute does not and that merger is, therefore, foreclosed by ORS 161.067(1).

This case is different from State v. Crotsley, 308 Or 272, 779 P2d 600 (1989), and State v. Atkinson, 98 Or…