State v. Fuller

“Civil stands for the proposition that, to prove an unauthorized taking, operating, riding in, or other use in violation of ORS. 164.135(1)(a), the state must present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant did not come into possession of the vehicle in question through an agreement with the owner.” State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 388 P3d 1185 (2017).

Defendant appealed a conviction for the unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV)(ORS 164.135(1)(a). He assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion of acquittal because it was undisputed that the defendant came into possession of the car by an agreement with his sister. His argument was that this form of possession flies contrary to ORS 164.135(1)(a) and is akin to the holding in Civil. State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 388 P3d 1185 (2017). The state responded that ORS.164.135(1)(a) should be read without the extrinsic evidence of the vehicle owner’s actions taken into account. “Civil stands for the proposition that, to prove an unauthorized taking, operating, riding in, or other use in violation of ORS. 164.135(1)(a), the state must present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant did not come into possession of the vehicle in question through an agreement with the owner.” State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395, 388 P3d 1185 (2017). The Court looked to the holding in Civil in coming to agree with the defendant. ORS 164.135(1)(a) does not apply where the defendant comes into possession of the vehicle by way of an agreement with the vehicle owner. Defendant was entitled to an entry of judgment of acquittal on the UUV charge.

Reversed.