State v. D. B. O., 532 P.3d 921

A 12‑year‑old youth (D) sat next to a 13‑year‑old (J) on a school bus, displayed a laptop, and made statements indicating pornography on the screen.
While on the bus, D repeatedly pushed and pinned J against the wall and, according to J and the bus audio, grabbed J’s penis multiple times over clothing while J yelled “stop” and accused D of trying to rape him.
Video showed D’s posture (back to aisle, elbows moving toward J) and intermittent viewing of the laptop; audio captured contemporaneous statements by J and sexualized sounds/words by D.
The juvenile court found D within its jurisdiction for third‑degree sexual abuse (nonconsensual sexual contact) and related harassment, concluding D acted with sexual purpose.
On appeal D argued the state failed to prove the element that touching was “for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire”; the state relied on circumstantial evidence (pornography display, repeated touching, contemporaneous statements).
The court addressed preservation (whether D preserved a legal‑sufficiency claim) and applied the usual sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state.

Issue	State's Argument	D's Argument	Held
Whether D preserved a legal‑sufficiency challenge	D’s closing was insufficient, per state	D’s counsel argued in closing that conduct did not meet elements of sexual abuse and asked dismissal	Preserved — counsel argued legal insufficiency ("that charge should be dismissed") so issue was properly preserved
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove touching was for sexual arousal/gratification	Pornography display plus repeated touching and sexualized words/sounds permit reasonable inference of sexual purpose	Conduct was immature "horseplay," video didn’t show hand on penis, no visible arousal or fondling evidence of sexual intent	Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (porn viewing, multiple touches, audio) supports inference of sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. R. W. G., 288 Or App 238 (2017) (standard for sufficiency review and preservation principles)
State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46 (2009) (sexual purpose may be inferred from context even where contact is brief or over clothing)
State v. Lerch, 296 Or 377 (1984) (no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence for sufficiency)
State v. Fitch, 47 Or App 205 (1980) (purpose element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; often by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Saunders, 294 Or App 102 (2018) (viewing pornography is relevant to inferring sexual purpose)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Evans, 171 Or App 611 (2000) (fact pattern where prankish intent was held insufficient to prove sexual arousal purpose)