State v. Miller

An appellate court must review “the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal for legal error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Rivera-Ortiz, 288 Or App 284, 285 (2017).

Defendant brought forth a consolidated appeal of two convictions for violating the terms of a stalking protective order, ORS 163.750. Defendant made multiple assignments of error, of which the court addressed two: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for acquittal; and (2) the court erred in assessing supervision fees despite being informed that Defendant lacked the resources to pay the fines. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to find that Defendant had violated his stalking protective order. In response, State argued that the arresting officer's testimony about the location of Defendant's vehicle was sufficient to conclude that Defendant violated the provisions of the stalking protective order. An appellate court must review “the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal for legal error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Rivera-Ortiz, 288 Or App 284, 285 (2017). The Court of Appeals held that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to conclude that Defendant violated the provisions of the stalking protective order, and therefore the trial court erred in denying his motion. Additionally, the Court accepted State's concession that it was an error for supervision fees to be assessed on Defendant. In A160386, order to pay supervision fees reversed; otherwise affirmed. In A160387, judgment of conviction on Count 2 reversed; order to pay supervision fees on Count 1 reversed; otherwise affirmed.