State v. Smith

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for first-degree theft by receiving.1 He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew or had good reason to know that the property in question was the subject of theft as required by ORS 164.095(1).2 We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the motion and, accordingly, affirm.

We set forth the facts in the light most favorable to the state and review those facts to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found…