Background
Adrian Sidney Mata Maldonado was convicted of second-degree assault with a firearm and unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm. The state alleged that he aided and abetted two teenagers, T and R, who got out of a vehicle he was driving near North Salem High School and fired shots, injuring D in the leg.
At trial, the state presented evidence that Maldonado, T, and R belonged to the same gang; were together before the shooting; and wore ski masks or stockings over their faces. Evidence also showed that T appeared to be concealing something at his waistband before entering the front passenger seat, that Maldonado drove the vehicle past the school three times as though its occupants were looking for someone, and that he stopped for T and R to get out and then drove them away after the shooting.
Maldonado moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence did not establish that he specifically intended to promote or facilitate assault or unlawful use of a weapon. The trial court denied the motion. An amended judgment entered while the appeal was under advisement mooted Maldonado’s remaining assignments of error.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude that Maldonado specifically intended to aid and abet T and R in committing second-degree assault and unlawful use of a weapon. The court therefore affirmed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and affirmed the convictions.
The court agreed that shared gang affiliation alone could not establish the required intent. But the evidence that T appeared to be concealing a weapon when he entered the vehicle, together with the repeated passes by the school, the face coverings, the sudden stop, the coordinated shooting, and the immediate getaway, permitted an inference that Maldonado knew about and intentionally participated in the shooting plan.
The court did not decide whether transferred intent applied. It concluded that the evidence permitted a finding that D was the intended target, notwithstanding D’s testimony that he did not believe he was the initial target.
Key Takeaways
- Aiding-and-abetting liability required proof that Maldonado specifically intended to promote or facilitate the assault and unlawful use of a weapon.
- Shared gang affiliation was insufficient by itself, but the surrounding conduct and coordinated sequence of events supported the required inference of intent.
- The state did not need direct evidence that Maldonado knew of the plan; circumstantial evidence permitted a rational factfinder to infer his knowledge and intentional participation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Oregon courts assess accomplice intent at the judgment-of-acquittal stage. Evidence must support intent to facilitate the charged crimes, not merely awareness that the participants planned to do “something,” but that intent may be inferred from the participants’ preparation, coordinated conduct, and actions before and after the offense.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).