State v. Peirce, 440 P.3d 98

Defendant was charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) for taking/using the victim’s 1985 Suzuki moped without permission. Trial conviction affirmed on appeal.
Victim reported the moped stolen after returning from travel; moped had been titled and worth about $950 when taken.
Officer Mintier stopped defendant on a moped and discovered the license plate was registered to the victim’s reported-stolen moped; the moped defendant rode was a different make/model and not reported stolen. Defendant admitted he had swapped license plates.
Police recovered the victim’s moped at defendant’s home with the plate removed and multiple signs of tampering: ignition brute-forced, kick-start damaged and jury-rigged, mirrors and milk crate missing, engine tampered with to increase speed.
Defendant produced a handwritten, incomplete bill of sale listing seller as “Jerry W.,” could not contact seller, and acknowledged the $50 price was suspiciously cheap; friend Reidy testified to a different sale story and had multiple convictions for theft-related offenses.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; jury convicted. On appeal, defendant argued insufficient evidence he actually knew the moped was stolen; trial court’s denial affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to prove defendant actually knew the moped was stolen	Circumstantial evidence (brute-forced ignition, removed plate, altered appearance, suspicious bill of sale, very cheap price, inconsistent/implausible explanations) permits a rational juror to infer actual knowledge	State failed to prove actual knowledge; circumstantial facts are like prior cases (Bell, Shipe, Korth) where evidence was insufficient	Affirmed: a rational factfinder could find actual knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt given the tampering, plate-switching, suspicious sale evidence, and inconsistent explanations
Whether restitution of $819 was plainly erroneous	There was record evidence supporting that defendant’s criminal conduct caused economic damage	Defendant claimed plain error; argued record lacked basis for restitution	Not plain error: record permitted inference defendant caused the damage, so restitution stands

State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346 (2010) (standard for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
State v. Bell, 220 Or. App. 266 (2008) (mere implausible rental story and low purchase price may be insufficient to prove actual knowledge)
State v. Shipe, 264 Or. App. 391 (2014) (presence of unrelated indicia of wrongdoing does not necessarily show defendant knew vehicle itself was stolen)
State v. Korth, 269 Or. App. 238 (2015) (stacking inferences about a defendant’s story and surrounding items can be too speculative to prove actual knowledge)
State v. Bivins, 191 Or. App. 460 (2004) (limits on permissible inferences; forbids stacking inferences to point of speculation)
State v. Smith, 261 Or. App. 665 (2014) (when multiple reasonable inferences exist, the jury decides which to draw)