State v. Korth

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 02-19-2015
  • Case #: A153685
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; & Hadlock, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To show that a criminal defendant had knowledge, the evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the particular crime for which he is charged.

Defendant appealed his conviction for charges relating to use of a stolen vehicle. Defendant was pulled over driving a truck that had been recently stolen and was charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle, possession of a stolen vehicle, and possession of methamphetamine. Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state had provided insufficient evidence that he knew the vehicle was stolen. The trial court denied his motion and convicted him on all counts. The Court reversed the first two counts and remanded for sentencing, but affirmed his conviction for methamphetamine possession, holding that, while the state’s evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant knew that some wrongdoing had occurred, it was not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the truck which he was driving was stolen. Counts one and two reversed and remanded for sentencing, otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search