State v. Odneal

“[T]he state may prove ‘a defendant’s knowledge with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence,' ” the inference that is made “must be one that a rational factfinder can be convinced follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the underlying facts.” State v. Bell, 220 Or App 266, 270, 185 P3d 541 (2008).

Defendant appealed a conviction of stalking and criminal mischief. Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion for a judgement of acquittal by the trial court. Defendant argued that the state failed to establish that there was a second episode “that would amount to an act of stalking or unwanted contact” given the facts and evidence presented. The State contended that with the facts there were two incidences of unwanted contact. “[T]he state may prove ‘a defendant’s knowledge with circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences flowing from that evidence,' ” the inference that is made “must be one that a rational factfinder can be convinced follows beyond a reasonable doubt from the underlying facts.” State v. Bell, 220 Or App 266, 270, 185 P3d 541 (2008). The Court found that that the evidence of the second contact was not sufficient as it did not show that Defendant alarmed or coerced the victim, knowingly, beyond a reasonable doubt or establish the mental state required for a stalking conviction. Here, the inferences made by the State do not show that the defendant knowingly came into contact with the victim a second time. Stalking conviction reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.