The Oregon Supreme Court issued an en banc decision December 30, 2025, reversing a Court of Appeals ruling and partially overturning a circuit court judgment in *State v. Williams*, a case that examines the boundaries of what constitutes "physical force" under Oregon's third-degree robbery statute.
The case involves defendant Joshua Brandon Williams, who was convicted of third-degree robbery in Baker County Circuit Court for an incident involving a motel keycard. The central legal question focuses on whether Williams's conduct met the statutory definition of using or threatening "physical force upon another person" when he grabbed a motel keycard from a guest's hand without otherwise touching or threatening the guest.
Under Oregon Criminal Code ORS 164.395(1), third-degree robbery occurs when a person "uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person" during a theft or attempted theft. The Oregon Supreme Court's review centered on interpreting this statutory language in the context of Williams's specific actions.
According to the court record, Williams grabbed a motel keycard from a guest's hand but did not make any other physical contact with the person or issue any threats. The trial court had denied Williams's motion for judgment of acquittal, leading to his conviction and subsequent appeals process.
The case proceeded through Oregon's three-tier court system, beginning in Baker County Circuit Court under Judge Matthew B. Shirtcliff. Williams was represented by the Oregon Public Defense Commission, with Deputy Public Defender Laura A. Frikert arguing the case before the Supreme Court. Chief Defender Ernest G. Lannet of the Criminal Appellate Section also contributed to the defense brief.
The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General E. Nani Apo, with additional support from Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman. The case was argued and submitted March 7, 2025, at Willamette University College of Law in Salem.
The Court of Appeals had previously issued a nonprecedential memorandum opinion in 2024, which the Supreme Court ultimately found insufficient. The high court's decision to hear the case en banc signals the significance of the legal question presented and the court's desire to provide definitive guidance on the interpretation of Oregon's robbery statute.
Justice DeHoog authored the Supreme Court opinion, which reversed both the Court of Appeals decision and partially reversed the circuit court judgment. The court remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings, suggesting that additional legal or factual determinations may be necessary.
The ruling addresses a nuanced question of criminal law that affects how prosecutors and defense attorneys approach robbery charges in cases involving minimal physical contact. The distinction between theft and robbery often hinges on the presence of force or threats, making the Supreme Court's interpretation of "physical force" crucial for future cases.
The case highlights the complexity of applying statutory language to specific factual scenarios. While grabbing an object from someone's hand involves some physical interaction, the court examined whether this contact rises to the level of force "upon another person" as required by the statute.
This decision potentially impacts how Oregon courts evaluate similar cases where defendants take property through actions that involve minimal physical contact but fall short of what might traditionally be considered forceful or threatening behavior. The ruling provides important guidance for distinguishing between theft and robbery in cases involving brief, limited physical interactions.
The Supreme Court's decision to partially reverse rather than completely overturn the circuit court judgment suggests that some aspects of the original ruling may remain valid while others require reconsideration. The remand for further proceedings indicates that additional legal analysis or fact-finding may be necessary to resolve the case fully.
The case originated as criminal matter CC 22CR05814 in Baker County Circuit Court, proceeded through the Court of Appeals as case A178802, and reached the Oregon Supreme Court as SC S070834. The Supreme Court's published opinion will be cited as 374 Or 648 (2025), providing precedential value for future Oregon robbery prosecutions.
For criminal defense practitioners, this decision offers important insights into challenging robbery charges in cases where the alleged force consists of minimal physical contact during property taking. For prosecutors, the ruling provides guidance on when theft charges may be more appropriate than robbery charges in borderline cases.
The case demonstrates the Oregon Supreme Court's careful attention to statutory interpretation and its willingness to provide clarity on important criminal law questions that affect both defendants' rights and public safety considerations.