State v. McNair

An appellate court must review a denial of a motion for acquittal in order to assess “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339, 768 P2d 391 (1989).

Defendant appealed from a conviction of first-degree burglary, fourth-degree assault, and coercion. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion for acquittal on the burglary and coercion charges. On appeal, Defendant contended that the victim had given him "implicit permission" to enter the dwelling, which did not constitute burglary. Defendant also argued that
there was insufficient evidence to convict on the coercion charge. In response, State argued that Defendant's argument as to the burglary charge was unpreserved. An appellate court must review a denial of a motion for acquittal in order to assess “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339, 768 P2d 391 (1989).The Court of Appeals agreed with State, in that Defendant's burglary argument was unpreserved. The Court further found that, based on the evidence presented at trial, there was a sufficient basis for the jury to convict on the coercion charge. Affirmed.