State v. Garibay, 478 P.3d 1006

Defendant, a gang prospect, drove with two gang members to confront three men at a Woodburn house after hearing they were “talking a lot of smack.”
Upon arrival, Little Blue exited the truck and pursued or fought with F; F’s cousin M intervened and was shot in the foot by defendant.
Defendant was charged in Case No. 17CR73083 with multiple offenses, including Count 4: unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) against F (ORS 166.220), aggravated by firearm use; he was convicted by the trial court.
At trial defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on Count 4, arguing insufficient evidence that he intended to use the gun against F; the court denied the motion.
On appeal the state defended the sufficiency of circumstantial inferences (gang purpose, presence, and timing of the shooting); the appellate court reversed Count 4, holding the evidence did not permit a non‑speculative inference that defendant intended to use the firearm against F, and remanded for resentencing in related matters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove defendant possessed a firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against F (UUW under ORS 166.220(1)(a))	State: Circumstantial evidence—defendant went to confront the men with a gun to stand up for the gang; when Little Blue targeted F, defendant "stood by" with the gun and shot M near F to assist Little Blue—permitting an inference he intended to use the gun against F.	Garibay: Admitted possessing and using the gun to shoot M but no evidence he intended to use it against F; mere possession, gang affiliation, and proximity are speculative as to intent toward F.	Reversed Count 4: the evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable, non‑speculative inference that defendant intended to use the gun against F; remand for resentencing.

State v. Hall, 327 Or 568 (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
State v. Guckert, 260 Or App 50 (whether evidence supports an inference is a question of law)
State v. McAuliffe, 276 Or App 259 (circumstantial evidence sufficient to infer intent to use a firearm against an identified target)
State v. Ziska/Garza, 355 Or 799 (definition of "use" as employment of a weapon to inflict harm or to threaten immediate harm)
State v. Rose, 109 Or App 378 (circumstantial proof of intent to use a firearm against an identified person)
State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460 (intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. Rogers, 301 Or App 393 (whether an act supports an inference of mental state depends on the case facts)