State v. Cheek

Defendant appeals from a conviction for embezzlement by an employe in violation of former ORS 165.005. He presents the following assignments of error: (1) defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted at the end of the state’s case in chief; (2) defendant’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted after all the evidence *176had been presented; and (3) the trial judge should have given two instructions requested by the defendant.

Former OES 165.005 provided:

“Any officer, agent, clerk, employe or servant of any person, partnership, association or any guardian,…