State v. Shipe, 332 P.3d 334

Defendant was found seated in the driver’s seat of a pickup reported stolen six days earlier; engine running, lights on, and he had baggies containing methamphetamine on his person.
Police found in the truck items including baggies matching those on defendant, bolt cutters, keys, documents with other people’s names, and a locked case labeled "crime committing kit;" much of the truck’s interior contained property later identified as stolen.
The truck’s owner testified his registration/insurance were missing, the vehicle had considerable damage, and the key used by defendant did not belong to the owner.
Defendant told the officer he had gotten the truck from a friend named “Richey,” but evidence indicated he had received it from his girlfriend’s son, Smith, who had a prior UUV conviction.
Defendant was tried in a bench trial and convicted of UUV (ORS 164.135) and unlawful possession of methamphetamine; on appeal he challenged only the UUV conviction, arguing the state failed to prove he "knowingly" used a stolen vehicle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved defendant "knowingly" used the vehicle (mens rea for UUV)	The presence of an improper key, visible damage, stolen property, bolt cutters, matching drug baggies, and defendant’s lie permit a reasonable inference he knew the truck was stolen	State failed to prove actual knowledge; evidence at most shows possession and association with stolen items but not that defendant knew the vehicle itself was stolen	Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove defendant actually knew the truck was stolen; judgment of acquittal should have been granted on UUV

State v. Cervantes, 319 Or. 121 (court reviews sufficiency by viewing evidence in light most favorable to the state)
State v. Bell, 220 Or. App. 266 (knowledge allegation requires proof defendant actually knew vehicle was stolen)
State v. Lasky, 259 Or. App. 307 (state must prove defendant knew he lacked owner’s consent)
Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or. 122 (knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Bivins, 191 Or. App. 460 (insufficient evidence when convictions rest on stacked inferences)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Mitchell, 142 Or. App. 40 (damage to vehicle not enough absent evidence defendant noticed it)
State v. Shuneson, 132 Or. App. 283 (reckless driving/flight insufficient to show passenger knew vehicle was stolen)
State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Hal, 168 Or. App. 76 (interior stripping and obvious wiring changes can support inference vehicle was stolen)
State v. Smith, 261 Or. App. 665 (reasonable inferences must follow from historical facts with logical probability)