Legal Opinion

State v. Kirkland

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 23, 2011No. D062742M; A142167PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for negotiating a bad check, ORS 165.065. He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shields, 184 Or App 505, 509, 56 P3d 937 (2002). The pertinent facts are few.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. RaineyOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State v. ShieldsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  4. State v. ShortCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. JacobsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  2. State v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  3. State v. GreeneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. B. R. B. v. SweeneyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024
  5. B. R. B. v. SweeneyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2024

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API