State v. Lewis

The court “[r]eviews the denial of an Motion for Judgment of Acquittal for whether a rational fact-finder could find, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and making reasonable inferences and credibility choices, that the state proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Davis, 261 Or App 38, 39, (2014). Reasonable inferences are permissible; mere speculation is not. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, (2004).

Defendant appealed his conviction of recklessly endangering another person. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (MJOA). Defendant argued that there is not enough evidence to tie what it is that he is alleged to have done and the child consuming methamphetamine. The State argued that because Defendant used meth in areas of the home open to the child and the child was very active in the home Defendant should have acknowledged the risk he presented to the child at any point. The court “[r]eviews the denial of an MJOA for whether a rational factfinder could find, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and making reasonable inferences and credibility choices, that the state proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Davis, 261 Or App 38, 39, (2014). Reasonable inferences are permissible; mere speculation is not. State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 467, (2004). The Court held that the record did not contain evidence that would permit a factfinder to reasonably infer the act or omission that the defendant engaged in with meth would expose the child to the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the child would be exposed to meth while in the defendant’s truck. Conviction on County 2 reversed; otherwise affirmed. Supplemental judgment reversed.