State v. McClour

In order to survive an MJOA, evidence must be present so that the factfinder “could reasonably infer that the [stolen item] possessed ‘some value,’ the minimum needed to define it as ‘property’ ” for purposes of third-degree theft.” State v. Waterhouse, 359 Or 351, 361-62, 373 P3d 131 (2016).

Defendant appealed his convictions of first-degree forgery and third-degree theft which resulted from two criminal judgments. Defendant assigned error to the trial court having denied his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) in Case No. 19CR38036. Further, Defendant assigned error to the nonunanimous jury verdict in Case No. 19CR32373. Lastly, Defendant assigned error to his sentence in Case No. 19CR32373. The State conceded. In order to survive an MJOA, evidence must be present so that the factfinder “could reasonably infer that the [stolen item] possessed ‘some value,’ the minimum needed to define it as ‘property’ ” for purposes of third-degree theft.” State v. Waterhouse, 359 Or 351, 361-62, 373 P3d 131 (2016). The Court reversed the lower court’s denial of Defendant’s MJOA and because a new trial for resentencing was needed, the Court did not address several of Defendant’s assignments of error. In Case No. 19CR32373, convictions on Counts 4 and 5 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case No. 19CR38036, reversed.