The Oregon Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeals decision in State v. Joshua Brandon Williams on Dec. 30, 2025, in a case that clarifies the definition of "physical force" under the state's third-degree robbery statute. The en banc decision, written by Justice DeHoog, partially reversed the circuit court judgment and remanded the case to Baker County Circuit Court for further proceedings.
The case centered on whether Williams' conduct met the legal threshold for third-degree robbery under Oregon Revised Statutes 164.395(1), which requires that a person "uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person" during a theft or attempted theft. The specific question before the court was whether Williams used or threatened "physical force upon another person" when he grabbed a motel keycard from a guest's hand without otherwise touching or threatening the guest.
Williams, represented by Deputy Public Defender Laura A. Frikert of the Oregon Public Defense Commission, had filed a motion for judgment of acquittal in the trial court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish the "physical force" element required for the robbery charge. The trial court denied this motion, leading to Williams' conviction and subsequent appeals.
The case originated in Baker County Circuit Court under Judge Matthew B. Shirtcliff, where Williams was convicted in case number CC 22CR05814. Williams appealed the conviction to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which issued a nonprecedential memorandum opinion in 2024 that was later reviewed by the state's highest court.
Oral arguments in the case were heard March 7, 2025, at Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Oregon. The Oregon Public Defense Commission's Criminal Appellate Section, led by Chief Defender Ernest G. Lannet, represented Williams throughout the appellate process.
The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General E. Nani Apo, with briefs also filed by Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman. The state argued that Williams' actions in grabbing the keycard constituted sufficient physical force to support the robbery conviction.
The Oregon Supreme Court's decision to review the case en banc indicates the significance of the legal question presented. En banc review, where all justices participate rather than a smaller panel, is typically reserved for cases involving important legal principles or when the court seeks to establish clear precedent.
Third-degree robbery is classified as a Class C felony under Oregon law, carrying potential sentences of up to five years in prison and fines up to $125,000. The distinction between theft and robbery often hinges on the presence or threat of force, making the court's interpretation of "physical force" crucial for future prosecutions.
The case highlights ongoing debates in criminal law about the boundaries between different levels of theft-related offenses. While the court's full reasoning was not detailed in the available excerpt, the decision suggests that merely grabbing an object from someone's hand, without additional contact or threats, may not rise to the level of physical force required for robbery charges.
This interpretation could have broader implications for how Oregon courts handle similar cases involving minimal physical contact during theft incidents. Prosecutors may need to more carefully consider the specific circumstances of each case when determining appropriate charges.
The Supreme Court's decision to partially reverse the circuit court judgment suggests that while Williams may have prevailed on the robbery charge, other aspects of his conviction may have been upheld. The remand to the circuit court for further proceedings indicates that additional legal issues remain to be resolved.
The case represents a significant development in Oregon criminal law, providing guidance to trial courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys about the elements required to prove robbery charges. The decision joins a body of Oregon case law interpreting the state's criminal code and establishing boundaries for different categories of theft-related offenses.
For Williams, the Supreme Court's decision represents a partial victory in his appellate fight, though the remand means his case will continue in the trial court. The specific outcome will depend on how the circuit court applies the Supreme Court's interpretation of the physical force requirement to the remaining charges and proceedings in his case.
The decision underscores the importance of precise legal definitions in criminal law and demonstrates how seemingly minor distinctions in conduct can determine the severity of charges and potential penalties faced by defendants in the criminal justice system.