holding that, where a crime was planned "in the presence" of an individual and where that individual was present at the scene of the crime but testified that he was not a lookout and provided no help, in the absence of other evidence that that individual "actively planned or participated in the burglary," he or she was "only a witness, not an accomplice"
Summary of this case from State v. J. M. M. (In re J. M. M.)July 12, 1988.
holding that, where a crime was planned "in the presence" of an individual and where that individual was present at the scene of the crime but testified that he was not a lookout and provided no help, in the absence of other evidence that that individual "actively planned or participated in the burglary," he or she was "only a witness, not an accomplice"
Summary of this case from State v. J. M. M. (In re J. M. M.)Full title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jul 12, 1988
Since Gwynn, we have said repeatedly that, if there was medical evidence of the possibility of future…
Van Woesik v. Pacific Coca-Cola Co.The language of the agreement is silent on that question. We recently addressed a similar issue in Mathis v.…