State v. F.R.S.

“The state’s line of reasoning cannot make ‘too great an inferential leap,’ or require ‘the stacking of inferences to the point of speculation’ to draw a particular conclusion.” State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, 83 P3d 379 (2004).

Youth appealed the juvenile court’s judgment finding him within the jurisdiction of the court for committing an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute possession of methamphetamine. Youth assigned error to the court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Youth argued that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the white residue found in a pipe he possessed was methamphetamine. In response, the State argued that the evidence was sufficient. Specifically, the State asserted that the youth’s “implicit admission,” together with the officers’ testimony that the substance in the pipe “appeared to be methamphetamine,” would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the substance inside the pipe was methamphetamine. “The state’s line of reasoning cannot make ‘too great an inferential leap,’ or require ‘the stacking of inferences to the point of speculation’ to draw a particular conclusion.” State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, 83 P3d 379 (2004). The Court of Appeals found that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to permit a reasonable inference that the substance inside of the pipe was methamphetamine. Reversed and remanded.