State v. Miller

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Miller

    206 P.3d 1058 (Or. 2009)

    April 22, 2009. Appeal from the 226 Or App 52. Petitions for Review Denied.

  2. State v. McNall

    307 Or. App. 435 (Or. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    In sum, although defendant identifies several pieces of evidence that call the state's theory into question, our role is not to re-weigh that evidence and decide whether defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Miller , 226 Or. App. 52, 55, 202 P.3d 921, rev. den. , 346 Or. 184, 206 P.3d 1058 (2009).

  3. State v. Olson

    296 Or. App. 687 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that an inference is permissible where there is a logical probability that an ultimate fact will follow a stated narrative or historical fact

    In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we "determine whether a rational factfinder, making reasonable inferences, could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Miller (A134139) , 226 Or. App. 52, 55, 202 P.3d 921 (2009) (emphasis in original). Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to only one element of the felony assault charges: defendant’s knowledge that the victim was pregnant.