Opinion
A156419 13JU252 1300213.
02-11-2015
In the Matter of E. L.-A. S., a Youth. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. E. L.-A. S., Appellant.
Christa Obold Eshleman filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Cecil A. Reniche–Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Christa Obold Eshleman filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Cecil A. Reniche–Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before DUNCAN, Presiding Judge, and LAGESEN, Judge, and FLYNN, Judge.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.Youth appeals a judgment finding her to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court for conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute theft in the third degree, ORS 164.043. The state's theory at trial was that youth aided and abetted two boys who stole sandwiches from a store. On appeal, youth argues that the evidence established, at most, that she was present when the boys took the sandwiches and did not stop them—conduct insufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. See State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Holloway, 102 Or.App. 553, 556, 795 P.2d 589 (1990) (discussing the requirements for accomplice liability); see also State v. J.M.M., 268 Or.App. 699, 705, 342 P.3d 1122, 1125, 2015 WL 363512 (2015) (presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to establish accomplice liability). The state, in response, concedes that “the evidence in the record is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that youth aided and abetted her associates in the theft of sandwiches,” and that the judgment must be reversed. We agree, accept the state's concession, and reverse the judgment.
Reversed.