State v. Connelly

*218Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for the unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.1 On appeal, defendant argues *942that "the state's evidence in this case was insufficient to support a reasonable inference that defendant had actual knowledge that the Subaru was stolen when he possessed it." We conclude that a rational factfinder could have found that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew this vehicle was stolen and, therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied…