306 P.3d 759
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Owner discovered overnight burglary at a Falls City storage facility: fence gate and eight unit padlocks cut; one unit door damaged; one unit (Morgan’s) searched and many items taken.
- Later same day, police found items from Morgan’s unit in a backpack in the trunk of defendant’s car; additional jewelry and property from the theft were found in defendant’s residence during a later warrant search.
- Defendant told deputies some jewelry came from the Falls City burglary but denied being at the scene, claiming he agreed to store stolen property for a friend (Ridenhour).
- Defendant gave inconsistent alibi statements about his whereabouts the night of the burglary.
- At a bench trial the court convicted defendant of first-degree burglary, first-degree theft, and two counts of second-degree criminal mischief; defendant appealed claiming insufficient evidence he was present at the burglary scene.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove defendant was present at scene of burglary | Possession of substantial recently stolen property hours after burglary, plus inconsistent alibi, supports inference he was at scene | No direct proof (witnesses, fingerprints); mere post-burglary possession is insufficient to infer presence at scene | Evidence was sufficient; court may infer presence from temporal proximity of possession, amount of stolen goods, and inconsistent statements |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove defendant caused property damage (criminal mischief) | Same circumstantial evidence supports inference he damaged gate/unit during burglary | Without proof he was at scene, cannot attribute damage to him | Sufficient; linked to burglary inference that he personally damaged facility |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boone, 213 Or App 242 (discussing viewing evidence in light most favorable to state on sufficiency review)
- State v. Baranovich, 241 Or App 280 (bench-trial preservation of sufficiency challenge by raising issue in closing argument)
- State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47 (standard for sufficiency review; factfinder need not accept defendant’s exculpatory version)
- State v. McAtee, 245 Or App 233 (instructions on permissible circumstantial inferences vs. speculation)
- Tose v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 648 F.2d 879 (third circuit) (describing line between reasonable inference and impermissible speculation)
Affirmed.