State v. Connelly, 445 P.3d 940

Victim's 1997 Subaru Legacy was reported stolen after being left parked; weeks later police found defendant and a Subaru with no plates at a Fred Meyer.
Officer Powell ran the VIN and learned the Subaru was reported stolen; defendant wore a computer chip on a lanyard that Powell removed as evidence.
Detective Wall (auto-theft trained) identified an electronic ignition-bypass relay in the Subaru and concluded the chip matched that bypass system; the victim had no such chip or bypass before the theft.
Inside the car officers found the victim's original plates, an expired plate previously used on a stolen vehicle, three "jiggle keys," blank DMV forms, and a notebook imprint of a suspicious bill of sale listing the co-defendant as buyer; appearance alterations (different hood, tinted rear windows, removed decals) were noted.
Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) and possession of a stolen vehicle (PSV); he moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the state failed to prove he actually knew the car was stolen.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove defendant actually knew the Subaru was stolen	Circumstantial evidence (ignition bypass chip in defendant's possession, lack of valid key, altered appearance, removed plates, jiggle keys, suspicious DMV/bill-of-sale documents) permits an inference of actual knowledge	State failed to show defendant had actual knowledge; comparably insufficient evidence in prior cases; no direct proof he knew car was stolen	Sufficient. A rational juror could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the vehicle was stolen, so denial of judgment of acquittal affirmed

State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346 (explains appellate standard for reviewing denials of judgment of acquittal)
State v. Bell, 220 Or. App. 266 (insufficient evidence of knowledge where vehicle showed no signs of tampering)
State v. Shipe, 264 Or. App. 391 (insufficient evidence where ignition worked and no visible tampering indicated theft)
State v. Korth, 269 Or. App. 238 (insufficient where defendant used valid key and no obvious damage to indicate vehicle was stolen)
State v. Peirce, 296 Or. App. 829 (evidence of tampering, missing plates, suspicious bill of sale supported inference of knowledge)
State v. Bivins, 191 Or. App. 460 (discusses limits on permissible inferences; avoids speculative stacking of inferences)
State v. Shuneson, 132 Or. App. 283 (vehicle appearance lacking signs of theft undermined inference of defendant's knowledge)
State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Hal, 168 Or. App. 76 (altered/interior-stripped vehicle supported inference driver had reason to believe vehicle was stolen)
State v. Gibson, 268 Or. App. 428 (defendant must actually know he lacks owner's consent when knowing is alleged)