State v. Casey
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction after a bench trial for a violation of ORS 166.270(1), which prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We affirm.
In reviewing a motion for a judgment of acquittal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the state had proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ORS 136.445; State v. Hall, 327 Or 568, 570, 966 P2d 208 (1998).
On the evening of June 3, 2003,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. HallOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. CoriaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
- State v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1964
- State v. MarshCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- State v. WrisleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. CaseyOregon Supreme Court · 2009