Defense asks court to limit felony‑murder liability in State v. Ray Leon; state urges affirmance

Defense attorney Pete Tiller urged the court to reverse Ray Leon’s conviction for felony murder, arguing the killing was not reasonably foreseeable from the underlying offense of conspiracy to traffic in stolen firearms.

Tiller told the court, “the predicate felony is trafficking, conspiracy to trafficking in firearms, stolen stolen firearms. Obviously not good, but not inherently a violent offense,” and said his client was essentially holed up in an apartment when a co‑defendant ran outside and committed the killing. "I submit that the defendant, the codefendant, should not be held liable if it was completely unforeseeable that the person was going to go out and do something something like that," he said, arguing that foreseeability should be required in cases like this.

The defense also challenged the offender‑score calculation applied at sentencing, asking the court to reduce the offender score from 4 to 3 and arguing the Oregon conviction the trial court relied on is not factually comparable on this record. Tiller described the difference as significant to sentencing and said the Oregon statute permits factual permutations that do not match Leon’s conduct.

Assistant Attorney Aaron Bartlett, arguing for the state, countered that a statutory defense to felony murder (a four‑pronged test) is available for outlier cases but did not apply here. Bartlett said Leon knew a codefendant was armed with a stolen firearm and that the defendants were transporting multiple firearms and ammunition, fleeing law enforcement and driving recklessly.

Bartlett summarized the state’s position: “When Guillermo thought that they were kind of cornered in this apartment, there was no other option other than to go out into the parking lot ... and he shot and killed that officer,” and he urged the court to affirm Leon’s conviction and sentence. The prosecutor argued those facts and the manner of flight support application of the felony‑murder rule and that the Oregon plea admission supports comparability for the offender‑score calculation.

In brief rebuttal, Tiller reiterated that the penalty imposed was "too harsh" for his client’s role and suggested the matter "cries out for a change" whether legislative or otherwise. The court announced it would consider the arguments and concluded oral argument for the day. No decision was announced at the hearing.

The case record references a statutory defense to felony murder and an Oregon plea used in the comparability analysis; counsel debated whether those authorities apply to the facts before the court.