In considering this assignment this court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and sustain the trial court's action if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Defendant was indicted for "knowingly uttering and publishing a forged money order."
Those decisions analyzed the tested presumption under the "rational connection" test announced by the United States Supreme Court in Tot v. United States, and subscribed to by that Court in more recent cases dealing with violations of federal liquor and narcotics laws. Tot held that if a statutory presumption is to be sustained, a rational connection must exist between the proven fact and the presumed fact: See State v. Redeman, 9 Or.App. 329, 496 P.2d 230 (1972); State v. Shipman, 2 Or.App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Morris, 2 Or.App. 149, 465 P.2d 892 (1970), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 972, 92 S.Ct. 2418, 32 L.Ed.2d 673 (1972).Carter v. State, 82 Nev. 246, 415 P.2d 325 (1966) ("Though possession is relevant and admissible evidence, it does not necessarily point to guilt."
In passing on the denial of defendant's motions, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and will sustain the verdict if there is any substantial evidence to support it. State v. Freeman, 4 Or. App. 627, 628, 481 P.2d 638 (1971); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 362, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 589, 469 P.2d 632 (1970). The state's theory at trial was that the objects were either metal knuckles or a similar instrument that could be used to inflict injury upon the person or property of another within the meaning of ORS 166.240.
We test the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and consider all of the evidence. State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Gardner, 231 Or. 193, 372 P.2d 783 (1962). The defendant produced evidence from medical witnesses in support of his first defense of mental disease or defect.
We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Long, 243 Or. 561, 415 P.2d 171 (1966); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Since the defendant produced evidence after making his first motion for acquittal, we consider all the evidence presented to the jury and not just that presented initially by the state.
In passing upon a denial of this motion, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and will sustain the denial if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Defendant was charged with armed robbery.
In passing upon the denial of defendant's motion we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and will sustain the trial court's action if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). The victim, Kenneth Eugene Williams, and a police officer were the only witnesses to testify.
In considering a motion for judgment of acquittal we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Klutke, 245 Or. 302, 421 P.2d 956 (1966); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970); State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 469 P.2d 632 (1970). The problem here presented concerns first the right of a landowner or occupant to act in defense of his property, and second of his person.
This requires that this court's review of the evidence be in the light most favorable to the state, and that the trial court's action in this regard be sustained if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). The deceased was killed by one of two rifle shots fired from across the street into the downstairs living room of her two-story home in Portland, Oregon, on June 7, 1968, shortly after midnight.
In passing upon the denial of these motions, this court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Klutke, 245 Or. 302, 303, 421 P.2d 956 (1966); State v. Livingston, 2 Or. App. 587, 589, 469 P.2d 632 (1970); State v. Shipman, 2 Or. App. 359, 468 P.2d 921 (1970). Defendant in his reply brief refers to his statement to Officer Lilly, "Well, what about my coat? It is cold outside."