State v. Ferguson ( 2023 )

No. 659 December 13, 2023 549
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SAMUEL DEAN FERGUSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Lincoln County Circuit Court
20CR39010; A177141
Amanda R. Benjamin, Judge.
Submitted May 25, 2023.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and David O. Ferry, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Alex Jones, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
JACQUOT, J.
Affirmed.
550 State v. Ferguson
JACQUOT, J.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree
burglary, ORS 164.225, and aggravated first-degree theft,
ORS 164.057, for breaking into the victim’s home and remov-
ing a safe containing cash and valuables. On appeal, defen-
dant assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motions
for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on both counts, arguing
that the state failed to adduce sufficient evidence that he
participated in the crimes. We conclude that the trial court
did not err in denying defendant’s MJOAs and affirm.
On review of the denial of an MJOA, we consider
the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state to
determine whether any rational trier of fact, accepting rea-
sonable inferences and reasonable credibility choices, could
have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a rea-
sonable doubt.” State v. Bivins, 191 Or App 460, 462, 83 P3d
379 (2004). The state may rely on circumstantial evidence,
and the jury may make inferences that logically follow from
that evidence. Id. at 466. An inference does not need to inev-
itably follow from the facts, and if the facts support multiple
reasonable inferences, the jury decides which inference to
draw. Id. at 467. Whether circumstantial evidence is suf-
ficient to support a particular inference is a legal question
that we decide. Id.A person commits first-degree burglary if the per-
son enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with an
intent to commit a crime therein. ORS 164.225. A person
commits aggravated first-degree theft if the person takes,
with intent to deprive the owner of, property worth $10,000
or more. ORS 164.057. Defendant argues that the evidence
was insufficient to show that he participated in the crime
or, at a minimum, that he entered the victim’s home, as
required for burglary.
The evidence at trial established the following.
Defendant knew that the victim would be absent during the
two-hour window during which the safe was stolen, and wit-
nesses testified that defendant was aware of the safe and its
valuable contents. An expert testified that DNA located in a
glove left at the scene during the burglary was approximately
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 329 Or App 549 (2023) 551
807 quintillion times more likely to have come from defen-
dant and two unknown, unrelated individuals than from
three unknown, unrelated individuals. Although defendant
argued that the DNA could have come from a close family
member, a witness testified that he had seen the glove in
defendant’s possession just prior to the burglary. In the past,
defendant had performed work for the victim that required
wearing gloves, however he had not worked at the location
for several weeks prior to the burglary due to an argument
based on defendant’s belief that the victim owed him money.
Defendant spent many thousands of dollars in cash immedi-
ately following the burglary. Contrary to defendant’s asser-
tion on appeal, witnesses did not describe him buying or
selling cars prior to the burglary, nor was there evidence
that he had begun working a new job.
Under our standard of review, a rational jury could
reasonably infer from the facts and circumstantial evidence
that defendant participated in the crimes and entered the
victim’s house while doing so, and the trial court did not err
when it denied defendant’s MJOAs.
Affirmed.