The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Ricki Scott Collin for second-degree disorderly conduct and second-degree criminal trespass. This ruling, issued on June 3, 2026, affects Collin and highlights the court's interpretation of evidence and jury instructions in criminal cases.
The case stemmed from an incident in Eugene, Oregon, where Collin and his girlfriend confronted a cookie shop owner regarding Oregon's mask mandate. The confrontation escalated into a physical altercation, leading to Collin's arrest and subsequent charges. The court's decision underscores the legal standards for disorderly conduct and the importance of jury instructions in criminal trials.
In the case, the State of Oregon was the plaintiff, while Ricki Scott Collin was the defendant. The dispute arose after an incident at a local cookie shop where Collin and his girlfriend attempted to enter without masks. The shop owner, identified as D, confronted them, leading to a physical altercation. Collin livestreamed the incident, which was later used as evidence against him. The Lane County Circuit Court initially convicted Collin of second-degree disorderly conduct and second-degree criminal trespass, prompting his appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Joyce, reviewed two primary assignments of error raised by Collin. First, he argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the disorderly conduct charge. He claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he intended to cause public inconvenience or engaged in threatening behavior. The court ruled that the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude that Collin acted with intent to cause public inconvenience. The court noted that the altercation occurred in a public place and was livestreamed, which could have alarmed bystanders.
In its opinion, the court stated, "The evidence shows that defendant and Hall initiated and livestreamed the verbal altercation with D about the state’s mask mandate in a publicly accessible place." This finding was crucial in affirming the disorderly conduct conviction. The court also highlighted that Collin's actions, including grabbing a baseball bat from D during the altercation, could be interpreted as engaging in violent behavior.
Collin's second assignment of error involved the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that they had to agree on a single theory of liability for both the disorderly conduct and criminal trespass charges. The court acknowledged that this was a plain error but determined it was harmless. The court explained that the evidence supported Collin's conviction under both theories of liability, whether as a principal or as an aider and abettor.
Judge Joyce wrote, "The absence of a jury concurrence instruction under such circumstances was plain error." However, the court concluded, "there is little likelihood that the jury would have returned a different verdict had the trial court provided it with the appropriate jury concurrence instruction." This conclusion was based on the overwhelming evidence against Collin.
The impact of this ruling is significant for future cases involving disorderly conduct and jury instructions. It reinforces the idea that a defendant's actions in public spaces can lead to disorderly conduct charges, especially when those actions are perceived as threatening or disruptive. Additionally, the ruling clarifies the standards for jury instructions regarding competing theories of liability, emphasizing the necessity for jurors to agree on a single theory when multiple theories are presented.
Going forward, this case may serve as a reference for similar cases where the sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions are in question. The ruling also highlights the importance of clear communication between the court and jury regarding the legal standards that must be met for a conviction.
As for the next steps, Collin has the option to appeal the decision to the Oregon Supreme Court, although the likelihood of success in such an appeal remains uncertain. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling.