State v. Gale

"[T]he state must first prove that defendant subjectively believed the victim to be under the age of 16. Then, after establishing that belief, the state must prove that the defendant's belief was objectively reasonable. ORS 163.433.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree online sexual corruption of a child, ORS 163.433.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the two online sexual corruption charges. On appeal, Defendant argued that "no reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt" that he “reasonably believed” that the victim was under the age of 16. In response, the State argued based on the evidence on record, Defendant acted like he knew the victim was under 16. "[T]he state must first prove that defendant subjectively believed the victim to be under the age of 16. Then, after establishing that belief, the state must prove that the defendant's belief was objectively reasonable. ORS 163.433. The Court held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal because based on appearance alone, a rational factfinder could not find, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that Defendant believed the victim was under the age of 16.

Convictions for first-degree sexual corruption of a child reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.