State v. Shipe

Evidence must be legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant "knowingly" acted; there must not be too great an inferential leap.

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Further, defendant argues that the state failed to prove that he “knowingly” used the truck without the owner’s consent, as charged in the information; that he actually knew the truck was stolen. However, defendant did not dispute that he drove the truck without the owner’s consent. The state argued there were common indicators of a stolen vehicle within the UUV. The Court held that a rational factfinder could have found that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the truck was stolen. However, the record does not include evidence legally sufficient to conclude that the defendant actually knew the truck he was using was stolen. UUV conviction reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.