State v. Shuneson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a passenger’s knowledge that the vehicle she was riding in was stolen could not be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt merely because the vehicle was being driven recklessly and the defendant attempted to flee from the police
• holding that a passenger’s knowledge that the vehicle she was riding in was stolen could not be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt merely because the vehicle was being driven recklessly and the defendant attempted to flee from the police
• noting that “[t]here was nothing unusual about the appearance of the vehicle, such as hot wires, that would have indicated to [the] defendant that it was stolen”
• noting that “[tjhere was nothing unusual about the appearance of the vehicle, such as hot wires, that would have indicated to [the] defendant that it was stolen”
• reversing trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the state presented insufficient evidence that the defendant knew she did not have the owner’s consent to ride in the vehicle
• reversing UUV conviction after concluding that “there was insufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew that she did not have the owner’s consent to ride in the [vehicle]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).