State v. Luttrell

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,

pro tempore.

Defendant appeals his convictions for sodomy and sexual abuse of a six-month old child for whom he was providing day care. We affirm.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. He argues that there is no evidence to support his convictions. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, State v. Arnold, 90 Or App 596, 599, 752 P2d 1300 (1988), we conclude that the state introduced sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements…