State v. Kirkland
241 Or. App. 40
| Or. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Kirkland was convicted of negotiating a bad check under ORS 165.065; he appeals the denial of a judgment of acquittal.
- The innkeeper testified that Kirkland had written a check for $43.19 while claiming he had no cash to cover the room, after previously using two checks that were dishonored for insufficient funds.
- The trial court denied acquittal based on the manager’s statement that Kirkland told her he did not have the cash in the bank, which the State relied on to show knowledge the check would not be honored.
- ORS 165.065(1) criminalizes drawing or uttering a check knowing it will not be honored; ORS 165.065(2) provides prima facie evidence of knowledge under certain circumstances.
- The Court of Appeals holds that ORS 165.065(2) establishes prima facie evidence (a presumption/inference) rather than additional elements of the offense.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the manager’s testimony that Kirkland said he lacked cash suffices for a rational jury to find knowledge that the check would not be honored, so the judgment of acquittal was correctly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ORS 165.065(2) add elements or only prima facie evidence? | Kirkland: ORS 165.065(2) adds elements; state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. | Kirkland: ORS 165.065(2) creates prima facie evidence of knowledge, not extra elements. | 2 creates prima facie evidence, not additional elements |
| Is there sufficient evidence of knowledge that the check would not be honored? | State may infer knowledge from whether funds exist; manager’s statement supports knowledge. | No direct proof that funds were lacking or that the check would not be honored. | Yes; evidence suffices for rational jury |
| Was the preservation argument properly rejected by the court? | State preserved the argument by raising it below. | Issue not preserved for review. | Preservation rejected; reviewed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Short, 88 Or. App. 567, 746 P.2d 742 (1987) (prima facie evidence in ORS 165.065 interpreted as knowledge inference)
- State v. Rainey, 298 Or. 459, 693 P.2d 635 (1985) (prima facie evidence constitutes a presumption; limits inference to knowledge of dishonor)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) (statutory interpretation of ORS 165.065; intent of prima facie provisions)
- State v. Shields, 184 Or.App. 505, 56 P.3d 937 (2002) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)