Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Lewis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 26, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SAVANNAH JULAINE LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted December 16, 2015

         Coos County Circuit Court 13CR1532; Richard L. Barron, Judge.

          Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Michael S. Shin, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Duncan, Judge pro tempore.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals her convictions for two counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800, among other crimes, challenging the trial court's denial of her motions for judgments of acquittal on the identity theft counts. Defendant argues that the state presented insufficient evidence to support a finding that she possessed and transferred the victim's identification “with the intent to deceive or defraud.” Held: Defendant searched the victim's jacket, which had many pockets, and removed identification, banking, and gift cards that were together in one pocket. She gave some of the cards, which could be used to steal the victim's identity, to her companion. Based on that evidence, a reasonable fact finder could find that defendant possessed and transferred the cards with the intent to deceive or defraud.

         Affirmed.

          [287 Or.App. 69]

          DUNCAN, J. pro tempore

         Defendant appeals her convictions for one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894 (Count 1), two counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800 (Counts 2 and 3), and one count of third-degree theft, ORS 164.043 (Count 4). On appeal, defendant raises four assignments of error. We write only to address defendant's first and second assignments of error, in which she challenges the trial court's denial of her motions for judgments of acquittal on the two counts of identity theft. For the reasons explained below, we affirm.[1]

         When reviewing a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, "we review the record and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether the trier of fact could have found all of the elements of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Clum. 216 Or.App. 1, 5, 171 P.3d 980 (2007) (citing State v. Cervantes, 319 Or. 121, 125, 873 P.2d 316 (1994)).

         Defendant was charged with two counts of identity theft for violating ORS 165.800.[2] One count was for possessing personal identification of another person (Count 2), and the other count was for transferring the personal identification of another person (Count 3).

         At defendant's jury trial, the state presented evidence that, on the date of the charged crimes, defendant was at a casino with a companion, Randolph. A casino patron, Siegel, left her jacket on a chair when she went to cash in a ticket. Randolph pointed out the jacket to defendant, who took it from the chair and carried it into the women's restroom. When Siegel returned to the chair, she noticed that the jacket was gone and immediately informed casino [287 Or.App. 70] security officers. The security officers found the jacket in the restroom and returned it to Siegel.

         Siegel called the police, who came to the casino and reviewed video footage from the casino's surveillance system. The footage showed defendant taking Siegel's jacket after Randolph pointed it out to her, walking to the restroom with Randolph, and entering the restroom with the jacket, but exiting the restroom without it. After viewing the footage, the police located defendant in the casino. She was in possession of items that had been in Siegel's jacket, including keys, cigarettes, an energy drink, and a Walmart gift card. The police checked the restroom trash for other items that had been in Siegel's jacket, but did not find any. Defendant told the police that she had given the identification and banking cards that had been in the jacket to Randolph. The next night, an associate of Randolph's turned in five cards at a convenience store located a few miles south of the casino, claiming to have found them. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.