Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


State v. McAtee

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 08-24-2011
Case #: A142096
Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; & Rosenblum, S.J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A142096.pdf

Criminal Law: Under Galloway v. U.S., if the ultimate fact may be logically proven following a fact or narrative, the jury may be given the opportunity to draw that conclusion.

Defendant was arrested after the victim called police with a stolen purse complaint. However, defendant denied possession of any stolen items, but the officers found the victim’s credit card and identification card on his person. The defendant later admitted throwing away the victim’s purse and keeping only the aforementioned items. Defendant appeals his conviction of identity theft based on the language of ORS 165.800(1), which states that possession of stolen items is not enough to prove the intent to deceive or defraud. However, to prove each element of the offense, the state may use circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences established in State v. Cervantes. Additionally, Galloway v. U.S. stated that if the ultimate fact may be logically proven following a fact or narrative, the jury may be given the opportunity to draw that conclusion. Since defendant chose to keep only her ID and credit card and discard her wallet, it is logical to infer that the defendant’s intent was to deceive or defraud. Affirmed.