State v. Witt, 493 P.3d 543

Owner reported a 1993 Subaru Impreza stolen on Jan 12, 2018; on Mar 9 an officer observed the same Subaru in a Tigard gas station and saw defendant drive it.
Officer ran the plate, found the vehicle listed as stolen, stopped defendant, and told her the car had been reported stolen.
Defendant said she bought the car weeks earlier via Craigslist/Safeway parking lot from a man called “John” for ~$500–$550; she initially could not provide seller contact, title, registration, or proof of ownership and had no documents in the glove box.
Officer found two keys: one extremely shaved key with an obscured head/logo (used by defendant), and a second shaved key with a Saturn logo; defendant said keys were worn by age and that they came with the car.
Defendant later produced a handwritten “bill of sale” naming the actual owner as “deceased”; the true owner testified the car had been stolen and he did not authorize any sale. Defendant had prior theft convictions.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; jury returned a 10–2 guilty verdict; defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of knowing use and that the nonunanimous verdict violated Ramos.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove defendant knowingly used a stolen vehicle (JOA)	Evidence (shaved keys, sketchy sale, lack of ownership documents, bill of sale irregularities) permits a reasonable juror to infer knowledge.	No reasonable juror could find defendant knew vehicle was stolen; suspicious circumstances alone insufficient.	Court affirmed denial of JOA: combined indicia (very shaved key, wrong-make key, dubious sale details, bogus bill) permitted a reasonable inference of knowledge.
Nonunanimous jury verdict / instruction permitting 10–2 conviction	(State defended the conviction below but did not defend instruction on appeal.)	Nonunanimous verdict instruction and acceptance violates the unanimity requirement after Ramos; plain error review allows raising on appeal.	Court found plain error under Ramos/Ulery; reversed and remanded due to nonunanimous 10–2 verdict.

State v. Connelly, 298 Or App 217 (2019) (recent Oregon guidance on proving knowledge for UUV)
State v. Pierce, 296 Or App 829 (2019) (analysis of circumstantial indicators of stolen-vehicle knowledge)
State v. Korth, 269 Or App 238 (2015) (suspicious conduct alone typically insufficient to prove knowledge without indicia like shaved keys or ignition damage)
State v. Shipe, 264 Or App 391 (2014) (illustrative decision where absence of suspicious key/damage undercut inference of knowledge)
State v. Bell, 220 Or App 266 (2008) (noting that an allegation of "knowingly" requires proof of that mental state)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (holding jury unanimity requirement applies to serious offenses)
State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 (2020) (applying Ramos to Oregon cases and recognizing plain error relief)