State v. Kirkland
241 Or. App. 40
| Or. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant stayed at an inn and paid for lodging with checks that later were dishonored for insufficient funds.
- The inn's manager received a spreadsheet showing two checks by Kirkland had been used for lodging and had been returned; he was locked out.
- On June 4, 2006, after being allowed back in, Kirkland gave a check for $43.19 but claimed he lacked cash to obtain funds.
- The defense moved for acquittal arguing there was no evidence he knew the check would not be honored and that any knowledge was speculative.
- The trial court denied acquittal; a jury convicted Kirkland of negotiating a bad check under ORS 165.065.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 165.065(2) furnishes prima facie evidence of knowledge. | State argued ORS 165.065(2) provides prima facie evidence, not extra elements. | Kirkland contends those facts are additional elements requiring proof beyond prima facie evidence. | Prima facie evidence, not extra elements; statute defines knowledge via conduct. |
| Whether statements that the drawer lacked funds support knowledge. | State relies on manager's testimony that defendant said he had no cash. | No direct admission that funds were unavailable at the time of utterance. | Evidence suffices to infer awareness that the check would not be honored. |
| Whether the evidence supports conviction under ORS 165.065(1) as written. | State need only show awareness that the check would not be honored. | The state failed to prove lack of funds or non-payment beyond speculation. | Evidence sufficiently shows knowledge under the statute. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying judgment of acquittal given the evidence. | State maintained the evidence, viewed in light most favorable, supports conviction. | Acquittal should have been granted due to lack of direct evidence of knowledge. | Court affirmed denial of acquittal. |
| Preservation of the argument about evidence of mental state. | Court treated preservation claim as nonessential and proceeded to merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shields, 56 P.3d 937 (Or. App. 2002) (standard for reviewing denial of acquittal (sufficiency))
- State v. Short, 746 P.2d 742 (Or. 1987) (prima facie evidence of knowledge interpreted as inference)
- State v. Rainey, 693 P.2d 635 (Or. 1985) (prima facie evidence creates inference of knowledge)
- State v. Gaines, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation of ORS 165.065 in context)