State v. Connelly

A UUV conviction will be upheld when “there is evidence of ‘tampering’ and ‘foul play’ that is ‘relevant to defendant’s knowledge’ that [the] [vehicle] was stolen.” State v. Peirce, 296 Or App 829, 838, 440 P3d 98 (2019) (quoting State v. Bell, 220 Or App 226, 271-72, 185 P3d 541 (2008)).

Defendant appealed a conviction for the unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) under ORS 164.135. Defendant assigned error to the trial court denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant argued, based on past case law, that the evidence on record was insufficient to support "a reasonable inference that Defendant had actual knowledge" of the stolen vehicle when he possessed it. In response, the State argued this case was distinguishable from the case Defendant relied on because "this case involves more and different circumstantial evidence that . . . would allow the factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [D]efendant knew the vehicle was stolen.” A UUV conviction will be upheld when “there is evidence of ‘tampering’ and ‘foul play’ that is ‘relevant to defendant’s knowledge’ that [the] [vehicle] was stolen.” State v. Peirce, 296 Or App 829, 838, 440 P3d 98 (2019) (quoting State v. Bell, 220 Or App 226, 271-72, 185 P3d 541 (2008)). The Court held, based on the evidence on record - (1) Defendant not having a key, but a computer chip that bypassed the ignition, (2) the license plates were removed and inside the vehicle, and (3) Defendant having a notebook used for the alleged bill of sale - and “viewed as a whole and in a light most favorable to the [S]tate . . . a rational factfinder would find that the State proved 'beyond a reasonable doubt'" that Defendant knew the vehicle was stolen.

Affirmed.