State v. Hamilton

── State v. Hamilton ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Kamins Category: General No. 404 May 13, 2026 497 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHET THOMAS HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 23CR19602, 23CR01186; A182288 (Control), A182289 Keith B. Stein, Judge. Argued and submitted October 14, 2025. Francis C. Gieringer, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Oregon Public Defense Commission. Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. KAMINS, J. Reversed. Tookey, P. J., concurring in part, dissenting in part. 498 State v. Hamilton Cite as 349 Or App 497 (2026) 499 KAMINS, J. In this criminal appeal, defendant seeks reversal of a judgment convicting him of felon in possession of a fire- arm, ORS 166.270(1), and a judgment revoking his probation on the basis of committing that crime. Defendant, a person previously convicted of a felony, relinquished ownership of a rifle by selling it to a pawnshop. The state elected to pros- ecute defendant under a “constructive possession” theory of the crime. Because the evidence the state relied on does not support a finding that defendant constructively possessed the rifle, we reverse. When reviewing the denial of a motion for a judg- ment of acquittal, as here, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hubbell, 371 Or 340, 343, 537 P3d 503 (2023). We state the facts in accordance with that legal standard. Defendant, after being convicted of a felony, moved in with his cousin, Foultner. Prior to the move, and without defendant’s knowledge, Foultner had stored defendant’s rifle in her gun safe. Only Foultner and her husband knew the combination to the safe, and defendant’s probation officer told Foultner that her gun safe was “not a problem.” At some point after moving in, defendant asked Foultner if she could help him sell his rifle because he could use the money. She agreed and told him that she had stored the rifle in her gun safe. Foultner retrieved the rifle from her safe and asked defendant if she had the correct firearm. From across the room, defendant identified the rifle as his. Foultner drove herself and the rifle to a pawnshop, while defendant traveled in a separate car. Foultner carried the rifle into the shop and defendant directed her to hand it to Carroll, a pawnbroker. Foultner placed the rifle on the counter, and asked defendant whether he was “good to go,” to which defendant responded, “Yep.” Foultner left, and, less than 30 seconds later, Carroll picked up the rifle, examined it, and placed it with her behind the counter, on the oppo- site side of defendant. Defendant then, without touching the 500 State v. Hamilton rifle, finalized its sale to the pawnshop. The entire trans- action took approximately 15 minutes, during which time Carroll either held the rifle or stored it behind the counter. Based on that conduct, the state charged defendant with felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1).1 The state also moved to revoke defendant’s probation on the basis of a new crime violation. Upon conclusion of the state’s case, defendant requested that the state elect a theory. The state responded that it would elect possession, and that it would not proceed on a theory of ownership. Defendant then moved f