- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 07-21-2021
- Case #: A168873
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Kistler, S.J. for the Court; Armstong, P.j.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant bought a stolen car from someone and did not have the registration documentation. Defendant’s only proof was the bill of sale which was written on notebook paper. Defendant appealed her conviction for unlawful use of a vehicle (UUV) arguing she should have been acquitted because no reasonable jury could find she was knowingly driving a stolen car and alternatively, that her conviction should be reversed because the jury verdict was non-unanimous. Evidence of general wrongdoing or suspicious behavior, standing alone, will not ordinarily be sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that a defendant knew they were using a stolen car. There was also evidence that the vehicle had been tampered with and Defendant was using a key which belonged to another vehicle which was modified to work in the stolen vehicle. However, the trial court erred in allowing a rule for and accepting a non-unanimous jury verdict. Reversed and remanded.