State v. R. W. G.

A claim of error is preserved when the legal insufficiency of the evidence is argued before the court. This is different from a closing argument only persuading a factfinder that the evidence does not favor the other party beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Forrester, 203 Or App 151, 155, 125 P3d 47 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006).

Youth appealed from a juvenile court’s ruling that it had jurisdiction over him. Youth assigned error to the court’s finding that it had jurisdiction over Youth’s sexual abuse of victim “A” beyond a reasonable doubt.  Youth argued that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient for the factfinder to reasonably infer that victim "A" had touched his testicles. Youth argued that this assignment was preserved in his closing argument when he stated, “it’s our position that this did not happen.” In response, State countered that Youth did not preserve this argument for appeal. A claim of error is preserved when the legal insufficiency of the evidence is argued before the court. This is different from a closing argument only persuading a factfinder that the evidence does not favor the other party beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Forrester, 203 Or App 151, 155, 125 P3d 47 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006). The Court concluded that Youth's closing argument was given to persuade the factfinder that it could not find against him beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that since Youth's closing argument did not touch on the legal insufficiency of evidence supporting the contention that "he was within the juvenile court's jurisdiction," this argument had not been preserved for appeal. Affirmed.