State v. Peterson

“When legal disputes are encompassed in the arguments for and against a motion for judgment of acquittal, we resolve them as we would any other legal question.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364, 455 (2016).

Defendant was convicted for first-degree theft, aggravated first-degree threat, and possession of a stolen vehicle. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of a motion he filed for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that he had an ownership interest in the property at issue, while the fire protection district did not. In response, the State argued that there were sufficient facts in the record for the jury to find that Defendant committed the charged offenses. “When legal disputes are encompassed in the arguments for and against a motion for judgment of acquittal, we resolve them as we would any other legal question.” State v. Turnidge, 359 Or. 364, 455 (2016). The Court held that the evidence was not sufficient to establish all of the elements for possession of a stolen vehicle and aggravated first-degree theft and the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. The Court reasoned that a factual determination of Defendant’s association with the district at the time of the offense is immaterial because the department, rather than the district, owned the property at the time of the Defendant’s offenses. Reversed.