Case Name: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tabitha Louise Strand MOORE, aka Tabitha Louise Moore, aka Tabitha Louise Strand, aka Tabitha L. Moore, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2019-04-03
Citations: 437 P.3d 330
Docket Number: A165058 (Control); A165059
Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Tabitha Louise Strand MOORE, aka Tabitha Louise Moore, aka Tabitha Louise Strand, aka Tabitha L. Moore, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 437
Pages: 330–330

Head Matter:
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Tabitha Louise Strand MOORE, aka Tabitha Louise Moore, aka Tabitha Louise Strand, aka Tabitha L. Moore, Defendant-Appellant.
A165058 (Control)
A165059
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted February 22, 2019.
April 3, 2019
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals judgments of conviction for second-degree forgery (case number 16CR46643) and second-degree failure to appear (case number 17CR12053). On appeal, defendant challenges only her conviction for second-degree forgery. In her fourth assignment of error challenging that conviction, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to give a jury concurrence instruction because the state advanced a theory of both principal liability and accomplice liability. See State v. Gaines , 275 Or. App. 736, 746-48, 365 P.3d 1103 (2015) (trial court plainly erred when it failed to give a jury concurrence instruction in light of the state advancing competing theories of principal and accomplice liability). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred.
We agree with and accept the state's concession that the trial court plainly erred in failing to give a jury concurrence instruction. Additionally, we conclude that we should exercise our discretion to correct that error because the error was not harmless and defendant's failure to request the instruction was not likely the product of a reasonable strategy choice. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the judgment in case number 16CR46643. Based on that disposition, we do not address defendant's second, third, or fifth assignments of error. Finally, we reject without discussion defendant's first assignment of error.
In case number 16CR46643, reversed and remanded. In case number 17CR12053, affirmed.