State v. Fitch

A defendant’s inconsistent story, lack of ownership documentation, and documentation containing another person’s name are sufficient evidence to establish both a “knowing” and “reckless” mental state for UUV under ORS 164.135.

Defendant appealed his conviction for unlawful use of a vehicle (UUV) under ORS 164.135, claiming that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant argued that the state did not provide sufficient evidence to show he had the requisite mental state under ORS 164.135. The Oregon Supreme Court previously held that a knowing mental state was required in regard to the use of a vehicle without the owner’s consent. State v. Simonov, 358 Or 531, 546, 368 P3d 11 (2016). In 2019, the statute was amended to establish “recklessness” defined under ORS 161.085(9) as a culpable state of mind for UUV. ORS 164.135(1)(a)(B). Simonov still applied despite the change. In order to prove recklessness, the state must show that the nature and degree of the risk was significant enough that ignoring it would be a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would follow. ORS 161.085(9). The Court held that Defendant’s story of the purchase, lack of bill of sale or title for the car, and possession of vehicle documents containing names other than his own were sufficient to determine he disregarded the risk that the actual owner of the vehicle did not consent to use, which was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would follow.  AFFIRMED.