State v. Cambron ( 2024 )

782 May 30, 2024 No. 357
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
LARRY DALE CAMBRON,
aka Larry David Cambron,
Defendant-Appellant.
Malheur County Circuit Court
22CR21423; A180600
Erin K. Landis, Judge.
Submitted April 30, 2024.
Michael R. Mahony filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Kamins,
Judge.
TOOKEY, P. J.
Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 782 (2024) 783
TOOKEY, P. J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction, entered
after a bench trial, for one count of fourth-degree assault,
ORS 163.160, for defendant having unlawfully and reck-
lessly caused “physical injury” to the victim, and one count
of harassment, ORS 166.065, for defendant having unlaw-
fully and intentionally harassed and annoyed the victim by
subjecting the victim to “offensive physical contact.”
In his sole assignment of error, defendant chal-
lenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for a judgment
of acquittal on both offenses. Defendant argues that the evi-
dence regarding his actions was legally insufficient to sup-
port convictions for fourth-degree assault and harassment.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state,
we affirm, because the “state presented sufficient evidence
from which a rational trier of fact, making reasonable infer-
ences, could find the essential elements of the crime beyond
a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hedgpeth, 365 Or 724, 730,
452 P3d 948 (2019) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
In arguing that his convictions should be reversed
because the evidence was legally insufficient, defendant
asserts that three specific determinations by the trial court
are not supported by the record. In particular, defendant
contends that, contrary to the trial court’s findings, he did
not lift the victim out of her chair, the victim was not drink-
ing alcohol on the night in question, and he was not, as the
trial court found, wearing the same torn shirt two days after
the events upon which the charges against him are based.
Regarding the first point, the state responds that “whether
the victim was standing or sitting when defendant grabbed
her and lifted her up by the arms is immaterial.” Regarding
the second point—whether the victim was drinking alcohol
on the night in question—the state responds that defendant
has not identified how such a finding is “relevant to whether
the evidence was sufficient for the court to find that defen-
dant assaulted and harassed the victim.” Regarding the
third point—concerning the torn shirt—the states asserts
that the record supports the trial court’s finding, but that,
regardless, any finding by the trial court regarding the shirt
784 State v. Cambron
was “immaterial to the court’s finding of guilt.” The state
then points to evidence in the record and contends that the
evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions.1
In the end, this case largely turns on whose version
of events was most credible to the trier of fact: the version
described by the defendant, or the version described by the
victim. We have reviewed the record in this case, including
the testimony of multiple witnesses, the officer’s body cam-
era videos, and the various pieces of photographic evidence,
and we agree with the state that the evidence was legally
sufficient to permit the trier of fact to have found that defen-
dant assaulted and harassed the victim.
Affirmed.
1
The state also argues that defendant failed to preserve his claim of error.
During a bench trial, a defendant need not move for a judgment of acquittal
to preserve “a claim of error concerning the sufficiency of the state’s evidence”
as long as the defendant “clearly raises the issue in closing argument.” State v.
Forrester, 203 Or App 151, 155, 125 P3d 47 (2005), rev den, 341 Or 141 (2006). Of
course, the “best way” to preserve such a challenge “is to move for a judgment of
acquittal,” id., because “almost invariably when defendants, rather than sepa-
rately moving for a judgment of acquittal, conflate MJOA-like contentions into
closing argument” in a bench trial the “question of preservation is close.” State
v. McCants, 231 Or App 570, 576-77, 220 P3d 436 (2009), rev’d sub nom State v.
Baker-Krofft, 348 Or 655, 239 P3d 226 (2010).
Here, we need not resolve the preservation question, because we assume
without deciding that defendant preserved the arguments he presents on appeal.