State v. Fuller, 463 P.3d 605

Defendant lived in his half-sister’s 1998 Honda Civic with her permission to use it as a place to sleep and store belongings.
Sister had not given him permission to drive the car; she told him no when he asked.
Defendant nevertheless drove the car and was charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), ORS 164.135(1)(a) (2017).
After the state rested, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal arguing he had owner permission to possess and use the car as a home. The trial court denied the motion; a jury convicted him of UUV.
On consolidated appeal the court considered whether, under State v. Civil, ORS 164.135(1)(a) applies where the defendant came into possession by agreement with the owner but deviated from the agreed use. The court reversed the UUV conviction and affirmed an unrelated failure-to-appear conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported conviction under ORS 164.135(1)(a) where defendant had owner permission to possess the vehicle as a home but drove it	State: Civil should not bar (1)(a) where owner granted possession for non-driving purposes; taking/operating occurred when defendant drove	Fuller: He lawfully possessed the car by agreement; Civil precludes conviction under (1)(a) when possession arises from an agreement	Reversed UUV conviction. Under Civil, (1)(a) does not apply when possession was obtained by agreement; trial court erred. Failure-to-appear conviction affirmed.

State v. Civil, 283 Or App 395 (Or. Ct. App. 2017) (holding ORS 164.135(1)(a) does not apply where possession of vehicle is obtained pursuant to an agreement with the owner)
State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47 (Or. 1994) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal)
State v. Hollingsworth, 290 Or App 121 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (preservation of appellate issues when raised and ruled on below)