State v. Connolly

In determining whether a defendant had "control" over another inmates PIN, "[t]he state may properly rely on the circumstantial evidence in the record to conclude that a reasonable fact-finder could infer from that evidence that defendant had control over the PINs." See State v. F.R.S., 294 Or App 656, 660, 432 P3d 1149 (2018).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for five counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State's evidence to establish that he committed the “culpable acts” was insufficient under ORS 165.800(1); specifically to the acts of “obtaining, possessing, transferring, uttering, or converting” other inmates’ PINS for his own use. In response, the State argued that the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable trier of fact to find that Defendant did “obtain” or “possess” the PINs. In determining whether a defendant had "control" over another inmates PIN, "[t]he state may properly rely on the circumstantial evidence in the record to conclude that a reasonable fact-finder could infer from that evidence that defendant had control over the PINs." See State v. F.R.S., 294 Or App 656, 660, 432 P3d 1149 (2018). The Court held that the evidence on the record, "along with reasonable inferences flowing from the evidence," was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to reasonably find Defendant “possessed” or “obtained” the other inmates’ PINs.

Affirmed.