State v. Peirce

"The state may prove a defendant's knowledge with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences," but the inferred fact "must be one that a rational factfinder can be convinced follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the underlying facts." State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238, 242, 344 P3d 491 (2015).

Defendant appealed a conviction for the unauthorized use of a vehicle. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion for acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to show that he actually knew the vehicle was stolen. In response, the State argued that the evidence was sufficient to prove Defendant was aware that the vehicle was stolen, given his mechanical proclivities, because there was evidence of tampering and foul play.  "The state may prove a defendant's knowledge with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences," but the inferred fact "must be one that a rational factfinder can be convinced follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the underlying facts." State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238, 242, 344 P3d 491 (2015).  The Court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal because "the evidence as a whole, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, would lead a rational factfinder to have found that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the moped was stolen." 

Affirmed.