State v. Moreno, 366 P.3d 839

Defendant was tried on two counts of first-degree rape and one count of first-degree sexual abuse; jury acquitted on rape counts and convicted on sexual abuse. Trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the sexual-abuse count; appeal followed.
Victim woke in a stranger’s house with defendant on top of her, believed he was having sex with her, felt something in her vagina, struggled, and was later found with scratches and bruises; she reported the assault and identified defendant.
Medical examers obtained oral, cervical, and vaginal swabs; semen was present and DNA showed multiple contributors, one low-level contributor could not include/exclude defendant.
Defendant initially denied sexual contact but later confessed (on recorded interview) to touching the victim’s vagina with his hand.
At the judgment-of-acquittal stage defendant argued the confession required corroboration under ORS 136.425(2) and that the state produced no evidence corroborating the specific act (manual touching of the genitals).
Trial court found the victim’s testimony, documented bruises/scratch, forensic evidence, and witness testimony provided legally sufficient corroboration; appellate court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the confession to touching the victim’s vagina required corroboration under the corpus delicti rule and, if so, whether the state produced legally sufficient corroboration	State: Corpus delicti requires only some other proof that the crime occurred; physical injuries, victim testimony, and forensic evidence corroborate the confession and allow the jury to infer manual touching during initiation of intercourse	Defendant: The state failed to corroborate the specific elected act (touching the victim’s genitals with his hand); victim’s rape testimony (for which he was acquitted) cannot corroborate the distinct sexual-abuse confession	Held: The corroboration threshold is low; victim testimony of being held down and injuries (bruises/scratch) plus forensic and witness evidence sufficiently corroborated the confession, so the trial court did not err in denying judgment of acquittal.

State v. Simons, 214 Or. App. 675 (Or. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal and need for corroboration of confession)
State v. Lerch, 296 Or. 377 (Or. 1985) (corpus delicti rule requires "some proof" that crime occurred; low corroboration threshold)
State v. Chatelain, 347 Or. 278 (Or. 2009) (ORS 136.425 codifies common-law corpus delicti rule and analysis under specific state election)
State v. Delp, 218 Or. App. 17 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (insufficient corroboration where no victim testimony or physical evidence corroborated confession)
State v. Campbell, 218 Or. App. 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (confession alone insufficient where independent evidence did not tend to show harm occurred)
State v. Ofodrinwa, 241 Or. App. 214 (Or. Ct. App. 2011) (physical evidence such as condom wrapper can sufficiently corroborate confession)
State v. Hernandez, 256 Or. App. 363 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (victim disclosures and testimony can corroborate specific sexual acts confessed by defendant)
State v. Metcalfe, 328 Or. 309 (Or. 1999) (procedural rule: motion for judgment of acquittal must be decided before jury verdict; sufficiency challenges after verdict require new-trial motion)
State v. Guckert, 260 Or. App. 50 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of first-degree sexual abuse; physical helplessness defined)
State v. Marker, 263 Or. App. 669 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (sleep can constitute being "physically helpless" under ORS 163.305)