State v. Cazee

                                       748

   Argued and submitted December 13, 2019; convictions for using a child in
    a display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS 163.670, reversed, remaining
   convictions reversed and remanded, otherwise affirmed January 27, 2021


                        STATE OF OREGON,
                         Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                   v.
                      KIRK RICHARD CAZEE,
                         Defendant-Appellant.
                     Clatsop County Circuit Court
                         17CR22218; A167047
                                   

    Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for numerous counts of invasion
of personal privacy, stalking, criminal trespass, and using a child in a display
of sexually explicit conduct. Defendant was arrested as a suspect in a yearlong
string of peeping tom incidents in a residential community on the coast. The
sheriff’s office had received multiple reports of incidents in which a teenaged girl
or young woman saw someone spying through a window while she was undressed
or engaged in sexual activity. One of the victims installed a video surveillance
system, which led to defendant’s arrest. At the time of his arrest, defendant was
carrying a cell phone. A detective obtained a warrant to search the cell phone for
digital images and videos, which led to the discovery of incriminating evidence.
Using the evidence from the cell phone, further warrants were obtained to search
defendant’s residences and vehicles, which led to the discovery of further incriminating evidence. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrants were not supported by probable cause, which motion was
denied. At trial, defendant moved for judgments of acquittal on various counts,
which motions were also denied. On appeal, defendant challenges the denial
of his motion to suppress, as well as the denial of his motions for judgments of
acquittal as to one trespass count and six display counts. Held: The trial court
erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the cell phone evidence, and the
derivative evidence obtained with later warrants, because there was nothing to
link defendant’s cell phone to his suspected crimes. The peeping tom had never
been seen using a cell phone in any way during his crimes, nor was defendant
seen using his cell phone on the night of his arrest. As for denying defendant’s
motions for judgment of acquittal, the trial court did not err as to the trespassing
count, but it erred as to the six display counts. Under the proper construction of
the statute, the evidence was insufficient to prove the crime of display.
     Convictions for using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS
163.670, reversed; remaining convictions reversed and remanded; otherwise
affirmed.



    Dawn M. McIntosh, Judge.
   Andy Simrin argued the cause for appellant. Also on the
brief was Andy Simrin PC.
Cite as 

 (2021)                            749

   Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause
for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
  Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge,
and Aoyagi, Judge.
   AOYAGI, J.
   Convictions for using a child in a display of sexually
explicit conduct, ORS 163.670, reversed; remaining convictions reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.
750                                            State v. Cazee

        AOYAGI, J.
          In 2016 and 2017, the Clatsop County Sheriff’s
Department investigated multiple reports of a peeping tom
watching young women or teenaged girls through their windows at night, including while they engaged in sexual activity. All of the incidents occurred in Surf Pines, a gated residential community on the coast. Defendant was arrested in
February 2017 after one of the victims, who had installed
a surveillance system, reported someone on her property.
At the time of his arrest, defendant was carrying binoculars, toilet paper, a flashlight, and a cell phone. A detective
obtained a warrant to search the cell phone, which led to the
discovery of over 7,200 photographs and 70 videos, including
some depicting teenaged girls engaged in sexual activity.
Using the evidence from the cell phone, further warrants
were obtained, which led to the seizure of further incriminating evidence.
         Defendant was indicted on numerous counts. Before
trial, he moved to suppress all of the aforementioned evidence, arguing that the warrants were not supported by
probable cause. The trial court denied the motions. A jury
subsequently found defendant guilty of five counts of firstdegree invasion of personal privacy, ORS 163.701; three
counts of second-degree invasion of personal privacy, ORS
163.700; five counts of stalking, ORS 163.732; four counts
of second-degree criminal trespass, ORS 164.245; and six
counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS 163.670. Defendant had moved for judgments of
acquittal on one trespass count and all six display counts,
but the trial court denied those motions.
         On appeal of the judgment of conviction, defendant
raises four assignments of error. He contends that the trial
court erred in denying, respectively, (1) his motion to suppress the photographs and videos found on his cell phone,
(2) his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his residence and camper, (3) his motion for judgment of acquittal on
the display counts, and (4) his motion for judgment of acquittal on one trespass count. We reject the fourth assignment
of error, regarding the trespass count, without written discussion. For the reasons that follow, however, we agree with
Cite as 

 (2021)                             751

defendant that the trial court erred in denying his motions
to suppress and his motion for judgment of acquittal on the
display counts. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
        I. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
               FROM CELL PHONE
A.   Facts
         On February 27, 2017, Detective Humphrey obtained
a warrant to search defendant’s cell phone for evidence of
second-degree criminal trespass, second-degree invasion of
personal privacy, and stalking, limited to data that had been
created, accessed, or deleted since January 2, 2016. Because
we are called upon to review the validity of that warrant, we
rely on the uncontroverted facts recited in the supporting
affidavit. State v. Goodman, 

, 

 (1999).
         Residents in the gated community of Surf Pines
reported multiple peeping incidents to the sheriff’s department in 2016 and early 2017. On January 2, 2016, a report
was received that a man of heavy build wearing a dark
hooded shirt had been watching a 17-year-old girl and her
boyfriend on a bed through a residence window at 1:30 a.m.
The girl thought that the man had been at the window for as
long as 10 minutes. Later that year, at a different Surf Pines
residence, peeping incidents were reported on September 4,
November 4, and November 26. In December 2016, yet
another Surf Pines resident, 22-year-old M, began to sense
that someone was looking in her windows. On January 16,
2017, M reported seeing someone or something in her yard,
and, on January 25, 2017, M reported seeing a figure outside her bedroom while she and her boyfriend were “being
intimate.” After those incidents, M installed a surveillance
system.
         In late January 2017, Humphrey joined the investigation of the Surf Pines peeping incidents. On February 1,
2017, Humphrey viewed surveillance footage showing a
person looking through a residence window for about 28
seconds. The person was wearing a hooded coat with a distinctive loop on the back of the hood. He covered his face
with his hand while passing through a lighted area and hid
752                                            State v. Cazee

when vehicle headlights came into view. On February 12,
2017, Watson, a resident of the same property where an incident had been reported on January 2, 2016, encountered
an unknown man outside the house. Watson described the
man as wearing a camouflage hunting jacket and having a
full beard that was gray except for a black accent near the
upper lip. The man claimed to be looking for someone and
left without incident once confronted.
         On February 16, 2017, around 10:35 p.m., M reported
seeing a person on her property on her surveillance system’s
live feed. Two officers responded, eventually encountering
defendant. Defendant lives in Surf Pines. Defendant’s jacket
matched the jacket of the person seen in the surveillance
video that Humphrey viewed on February 1, including the
distinctive loop on the back of the hood, and his physical
appearance also matched. Upon reviewing M’s surveillance
video from that night (February 16), defendant also appeared
to be the person in M’s video. Defendant was arrested for
criminal trespassing. At the time of arrest, he had binoculars concealed under his jacket, toilet paper in a plastic bag,
a flashlight, and a cell phone. Defendant denied trespassing
and stated that he walks the trails at night, carries binoculars to look at wildlife, and carries toilet paper in case
he needs to go to the bathroom while walking. Defendant
refused to consent to a search of his cell phone.
          The next day, Watson viewed a six-photo lineup.
Upon seeing defendant’s photo, he stated that, “so far out
of all of them, that’d be the closest.” Watson indicated that
there had been limited light when he confronted the man
outside the house but that he had focused on the facial area
and specifically the man’s beard.
        Based on those facts, Humphrey subjectively believed
that there was probable cause to believe that defendant had
criminally trespassed on multiple occasions for the purpose
of viewing people in the privacy of their homes and had
viewed people engaged in sexual activities without their
knowledge for his own sexual gratification.
        As relevant here, Humphrey further believed that
defendant’s cell phone data might reveal that he had
recorded people without their knowledge. As described in the
Cite as 

 (2021)                                                753

affidavit, Humphrey has been a police officer for 13 years.
From his training and experience (described in the affidavit), Humphrey has learned that “people involved in criminal behaviors use computers and other personal electronic
devices, such as cellular telephones and tablet computers, to
aid in the commission of their crimes.” More specifically, he
has learned “that people engaged in criminal sexual behaviors use electronic devices to collect and retain media related
to their crimes such as images or videos of their victims”
and “that people who practice voyeurism often use optical
magnifiers such as binoculars to gain a visual advantage in
viewing other people in the privacy of their own homes” and
“often use their personal electronic mobile devices to record,
view, and store images and videos of the people they watch.”
        The magistrate issued the requested warrant
to search defendant’s cell phone for “images and videos,”
including depictions of people engaged in sexual behavior
and other private acts and depictions of people being viewed
or recorded without their knowledge where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.1
         Upon execution of the warrant, more than 7,200
photographs and 70 videos were found on defendant’s cell
phone, some depicting teenaged girls engaged in sexual
activity or in states of nudity.
          Defendant was indicted on numerous counts. Before
trial, he moved to suppress the evidence from his cell phone.
The trial court denied the motion, stating:
       “Defendant was caught red handed, walking in the area
    in the middle of the night and immediately following the
    last incident. He was arrested carrying ‘tools of the trade,’
    including binoculars, toilet paper, and a cellular telephone capable of recording and photographing. Parts of his
    actions in approaching a window at the victim’s home were
    caught on video tape though parts remain unseen.

    1
      We note that the warrant also authorized law enforcement to search defendant’s cell phone for “location data,” including global positioning information and
wireless connection data, and “internet browsing data,” including internet use
history. Neither party discusses those aspects of the warrant, possibly because
the state did not find or use any incriminating evidence of those types. In any
event, like the parties, we limit our discussion to the validity of the warrant to
search for images and videos.
754                                                State v. Cazee

         “These facts alone, when viewed through the lens of
     Detective Humphrey’s substantial experience and training
     related to people who engage in criminal sexual behavior
     (and voyeurism [in] … particular) provided ample probable cause to believe that Defendant had committed the
     crimes listed in the affidavit and to believe that evidence
     of these crimes would be located on the cellular phone in
     Defendant’s possession.”
         Defendant proceeded to trial. A jury found him
guilty of multiple counts of invasion of personal privacy,
stalking, criminal trespass, and display, as previously
described. He appeals the resulting judgment of conviction,
first challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the
photographs and videos found on his cell phone.
B.    Legal Analysis
         Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution
protects the right of the people to be free of unreasonable
searches and seizures and requires warrants to issue only
upon probable cause. Search warrants are presumptively
valid. State v. Van Osdol, 

, 

(2017). Defendant therefore bore the burden to establish
that the warrant to search his cell phone for photographs
and videos was defective, such that the photographs and
videos found on it should have been suppressed. 

 Here,
defendant argued to the trial court—and argues again on
appeal—that the facts in Humphrey’s affidavit were insufficient as a matter of law to establish the necessary probable
cause. Defendant does not contest that the facts in the affidavit were sufficient to establish probable cause that he had
committed criminal trespassing, but he disputes that they
were sufficient to establish probable cause that he had committed voyeuristic crimes, and, in any event, he contends
that they were insufficient to establish probable cause that
evidence of any crimes would be found on his cell phone.
         We review a trial court’s determination of probable cause to support a warrant for legal error. 

 “When
evaluating the sufficiency of a search warrant affidavit, our
task is to determine whether the affidavit alleged sufficient
facts to permit a neutral and detached magistrate to determine that seizable evidence probably would be found at the
Cite as 

 (2021)                               755

place to be searched.” State v. Williams, 

, 

 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We examine the affidavit in a commonsense and realistic
fashion, taking into account both facts and inferences, and
we resolve doubtful cases in favor of warrant validity. Van
Osdol, 

. To establish probable cause, an
affidavit must “do more than allege facts that support a
mere suspicion that evidence will be found; even a well-warranted suspicion does not suffice. Rather, the standard of
probability requires the conclusion that it is more likely than
not that the objects of the search will be found at the specified
location.” Williams, 

 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted; emphasis added).

         As a preliminary matter, we agree with the state that
the facts in Humphrey’s affidavit were sufficient to establish
probable cause to believe that defendant had committed not
only criminal trespassing but also invasion of personal privacy in the form of peeping activities. See Van Osdol, 

 (the affidavit must establish “a nexus between
three things: (1) that a crime has been, or is currently being,
committed, and that (2) evidence of that crime (3) will be
found in the place to be searched”). Surf Pines—a gated residential community on the coast—had experienced a rash of
peeping activity over the course of a year, with a significant
number of reports in the months leading up to defendant’s
arrest, repeat victims, and similarities between victims. On
the night of defendant’s arrest, M, a repeat victim, reported
seeing a person on her live surveillance feed, and defendant
was found nearby. Defendant had a residence in Surf Pines.
He matched the person captured on M’s surveillance video.
His jacket and physical appearance also matched the person
captured on a different surveillance video two weeks earlier.
He was carrying binoculars and toilet paper. Further, in a
photo line-up the next day, a resident who had confronted a
man on his property only five days earlier identified defendant as “the closest” match to the person he had seen, noting in particular defendant’s distinctive facial hair.

         Taken together, those facts were objectively sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that defendant
had committed the crime of invasion of personal privacy at
756                                           State v. Cazee

multiple homes in Surf Pines. See State v. D. C., 

, 

 (2015) (whether probable cause for
a particular crime objectively exists depends on the totality
of the circumstances). And Humphrey’s subjective belief is
undisputed. We reject defendant’s argument that the affidavit established only probable cause to believe that defendant
had committed trespass on February 16, 2017.
         The next question is whether the facts in Humphrey’s
affidavit were sufficient to create probable cause to believe
that evidence of defendant’s suspected crimes would more
likely than not be found on his cell phone. A person’s privacy interests in a cell phone “are equal to or surpass those
of a home.” State v. Mansor, 

, 

(2018). Here, according to the facts in the affidavit, no one
had ever seen the Surf Pines peeping tom using a cell phone
or any type of electronic device. In defending the issuance
of the warrant, the state argues that Humphrey’s training
and experience supplied the necessary link between probable cause to believe that defendant had committed voyeuristic crimes and probable cause to believe that evidence of
those crimes would be found on defendant’s cell phone. We
disagree.
         Humphrey’s training and experience cannot bridge
the gap in this case. “It is well settled that determinations
of probable cause involve the totality of the circumstances
in any given situation and that a law enforcement officer’s
training and experience are among the circumstances that
can be considered.” State v. Daniels, 

,

 (2010). However, probable cause must be based
on specific and articulable facts about the defendant, interpreted in light of the existing circumstances and the officer’s training and experience. State v. Farrar, 

, 

 (2012).
         “In order for an attestation regarding training
and experience to support probable cause, it must connect
a defendant’s particular conduct or circumstances with the
specific evidence that police seek, and it must be supported
by objective facts derived from other sources.” Daniels, 

 (internal quotation marks omitted). For
example, if a defendant had in his possession paper folded
Cite as 

 (2021)                             757

in a particular way, and an officer knew from training and
experience that paper folded that way is often used to carry
drugs, the officer’s training and experience could provide a
basis to believe that the defendant’s paper contained drugs.
State v. Miglavs, 

, 

 (2003),
aff’d, 

, 

 (2004). Thus, “an officer may consider the facts in light of the officer’s training, knowledge,
and experience, but that experience cannot itself supply the
facts.” State v. Aguilar, 

, 

(2020).

         In Aguilar, we held that probable cause did not exist
to believe that the defendant had committed the traffic violation of not wearing a safety belt in a vehicle operating on
the highway, where an officer observed her sitting without
a seatbelt in the passenger seat of a car about 10 to 12 seconds after the car left the public highway and later testified
to his experience that “normal” people do not take off their
seatbelts in such situations. 

. We held that evidence to be insufficient to create probable cause, because
there were “no specific and articulable facts … to support
the conclusion that defendant had more likely than not committed any traffic violation.” 

. To conclude otherwise would “improperly use[ ] officer experience to add a
fact—that defendant was not wearing a seatbelt—without
any evidence in the record from which to reasonably draw
that conclusion.” 

 Because probable cause did not exist, it
was error to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress. 

.

        Similarly, in State v. Sunderman, 

, 

 (2020), we held that evidence should
have been suppressed because the facts were insufficient to
create probable cause to believe that the defendant criminally possessed methamphetamine. During a traffic stop,
the defendant was found to be in possession of two unused
methamphetamine pipes. 

. The officer “testified to
his extensive training and experience, including his knowledge that the pipes were used for methamphetamine and
that, when he had discovered methamphetamine pipes in
the past, it was more likely than not that he would also find
methamphetamine associated with those pipes.” 

 The
758                                                           State v. Cazee

officer therefore “believed that it was more likely than not
that he would discover methamphetamine in defendant’s
car.” 

 We concluded that the officer’s testimony could
establish that the pipes were methamphetamine pipes but
was insufficient to create probable cause for possession.

. The testimony was “not particularized to
defendant or her car” and “did not provide enough facts
about defendant or her car that, combined with [the officer’s]
training and experience, would lead a reasonable person to
believe that evidence of current drug possession would probably be found in defendant’s car.” Id.2
        Here, of course, we have already concluded that
Humphrey’s affidavit established probable cause to believe
that defendant had committed invasion of personal privacy,
and we are now focused on the more specific issue of whether
evidence would more likely than not be found on defendant’s
cell phone. The standard is fundamentally the same, however, whether the issue is the sufficiency of the evidence to
establish probable cause to believe that a person has committed a particular crime or the sufficiency of the evidence
to establish probable cause to believe that evidence of that
crime will be found in a particular place. Keeping that in
mind, we next consider some cases specifically involving
warrants.
         In Daniels, 

, we upheld the denial
of a motion to suppress after concluding that a warrant to
search the defendant’s home for videotape evidence of child
sexual abuse was valid. The objective facts in the officer’s
affidavit were sufficient on their own to establish probable
cause to believe that some physical evidence would be found
in the home. 

. As for videotape evidence specifically, however, the objective facts were sufficient only when
coupled with the officer’s training and experience. 

 The
only objective fact related to videotapes was an allegation
that the defendant had tried unsuccessfully to videotape an

     2
       Even more recently, in State v. Taylor, 

, 

(2020)—which involved the lower standard of reasonable suspicion—we reiterated that an officer’s training and experience “cannot take the place of articulable facts,” and we concluded that an officer’s training regarding drug crimes and
experience regarding drug crimes in the particular area of a traffic stop were
insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion as to defendant personally.
Cite as 

 (2021)                              759

act of sexual abuse of his daughter at least 20 years earlier. Id. at 535. We described that dated evidence as “undeniably” insufficient on its own to obtain a warrant to search
for videotapes, as it created “at most a tenuous suspicion
that defendant might possess illegal videotapes.” Id. at 539-
40. It was sufficient, however, when coupled with the officer’s knowledge from training and experience, including
that pedophiles own and often retain “deviant” movies and
rarely dispose of sexually explicit materials. Id. at 541. The
inclusion of videotapes in the warrant as one of the items for
which officers could search therefore was valid. Id. at 543.
         More recently, in State v. Friddle, 

, 

 (2016), a state trooper responded to
a violent altercation between the defendant and his thengirlfriend, under circumstances that created probable cause
to believe that evidence of the altercation would be found
on the defendant’s home security system and a specific cell
phone that the defendant used to access that system. The
trooper obtained a warrant to search all of the defendant’s
personal electronic devices, supported by an affidavit stating, among other things, that the trooper had learned from
training and experience that “subjects involved in criminal
activity regularly use cellular telephones and cellular telephone features … to record and store photos, audio recordings, and video recordings of their crimes.” 

.
Upon execution of the warrant, illegal drugs were found in
a gun safe, which the defendant later moved to suppress.

. The trial court denied the motion, and we
reversed. 

 Although probable cause existed to search the
security system and the one cell phone, because there were
objective facts to support a belief that evidence would more
likely than not be found on those two devices, probable cause
did not exist to search any other electronic devices, because
there were no objective facts for any other devices. 

.
The warrant was therefore invalid. 

.
         Applying the foregoing principles, the facts in
Humphrey’s affidavit were insufficient to establish probable cause to search defendant’s cell phone. Certainly, it was
possible that evidence of invasion of personal privacy might
exist on defendant’s cell phone. It might even have been a
“well-warranted suspicion,” given Humphrey’s training and
760                                           State v. Cazee

experience. But neither a possibility nor a well-warranted
suspicion is probable cause. Williams, 

.
“Rather, the standard of probability requires the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the objects of the
search will be found at the specified location.” 

 (internal
quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). To meet that
standard, an officer must be able to articulate specific facts
about the defendant, which must be “derived from other
sources,” and only then can be interpreted through the lens
of training and experience. Daniels, 

.
“[A]n officer may consider the facts in light of the officer’s
training, knowledge, and experience, but that experience
cannot itself supply the facts.” Aguilar, 

.
          No one ever reported seeing the Surf Pines peeping tom using a cell phone or any type of electronic device.
No one ever saw the peeping tom even holding a cell phone,
let alone using one during his crimes. In that context, the
unremarkable fact that defendant had a cell phone on him
at the time of his arrest cannot supply the objective factual
foundation necessary for probable cause. Cell phones are
ubiquitous. Merely having a cell phone in his possession
was too thin a reed to support probable cause, when virtually anyone on the street would have a cell phone. Relatedly,
the state argues that the fact that defendant had binoculars, toilet paper, and a cell phone on his person allows an
inference that he was using all three items in aid of peeping
activities. But if everyone carries a cell phone, there is no
logical reason to group defendant’s cell phone with his binoculars and toilet paper, rather than grouping it with his
clothing and house keys or the like. On this record, something more was required to connect defendant’s cell phone
with defendant’s suspected criminal activity. Humphrey’s
training and experience that criminals in general often use
cell phones to aid in the commission of their crimes and that
voyeurs in particular often use cell phones to record their
victims cannot itself give rise to probable cause. Cf. State
v. Miller, 

, 

 (2013) (holding
that a warrant to search the defendant’s home for evidence
of drug dealing was not supported by probable cause, where
the police witnessed him selling drugs on three occasions,
but those sales occurred away from home and there were no
Cite as 

 (2021)                             761

objective facts to connect defendant’s criminal activity to his
home; the officer’s averments from training and experience
about the habits of drug dealers were insufficient to establish probable cause where the “necessary factual nexus” was
absent).
          Analogizing to Daniels, even a single report of
the Surf Pines peeping tom using a cell phone during his
crimes might have been enough to establish probable cause
to search defendant’s cell phone. That additional objective
fact could have potentially shifted the situation over the
“more likely than not” line. That said, a videotape is different from a cell phone, which would have to be taken into
account in the analysis. See Mansor, 

) (recognizing that a videotape is not analogous to a computer or
a cell phone). In any event, we need not decide exactly how
much more would have been necessary to establish probable
cause, because, in this case, there were no objective facts to
connect defendant’s cell phone with his suspected criminal
activity.
        We therefore conclude that the trial court erred in
denying defendant’s motion to suppress the photographs
and videos obtained from his cell phone.
    II. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM
            RESIDENCE AND CAMPER
        Five weeks after obtaining the warrant to search
defendant’s cell phone, Humphrey applied for and obtained
warrants to search defendant’s Surf Pines residence,
Portland residence, and various vehicles. The execution of
those warrants led to the seizure of more incriminating evidence from a residence and from a camper.
         Humphrey relied heavily on the evidence from defendant’s cell phone to obtain the later warrants. Having held
that the cell phone evidence should have been suppressed,
it follows that the evidence from defendant’s residence and
camper also should have been suppressed. Without the cell
phone evidence, the limited information in the affidavits
was insufficient to establish probable cause to search defendant’s residences and vehicles. The state implicitly concedes
as much, making no argument that the later warrants were
762                                             State v. Cazee

valid even if the first warrant was invalid, except that it
argues that we need not address the portion of the motion
relating to the camper because the charges based on that
evidence were dismissed. Under the circumstances, a more
detailed discussion of the second assignment of error would
be of little benefit. The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence from his residence.
      III.   MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
                   (DISPLAY COUNTS)
         In his third assignment of error, defendant argues
that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment
of acquittal on six counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, ORS 163.670. In reviewing the denial
of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we view the facts and
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable
to the state. State v. Waterhouse, 

, 

 (2016). Our task is to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found each element of the offense to have
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Reed, 

, 

 (2005).
         A person commits the crime of using a child in a
display of sexually explicit conduct “if the person employs,
authorizes, permits, compels or induces a child to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct for any person to
observe or to record in a visual recording.” ORS 163.670(1).
A child is any person less than 18 years of age or, when a
visual recording is at issue, less than 18 years of age at the
time of the original recording. ORS 163.665(1).
         Defendant was convicted of six counts of display,
based on “permitting” a child to participate or engage in
sexually explicit conduct for a person (defendant) to visually record. The counts involved multiple different victims,
that is, different teenaged girls who defendant allegedly
photographed or video recorded without their knowledge
while they engaged in sexual activity in their bedrooms.
The state argues that the evidence was sufficient to survive
a motion for judgment of acquittal, because there was evidence that defendant, while engaged in peeping activities,
had “permitted” himself to visually record girls less than
Cite as 

 (2021)                               763

18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct. As a
matter of statutory construction, the state argues that ORS
163.670(1) encompasses a person’s act of “permitting” the
visual recording of sexually explicit conduct by a child, even
if the person did not “permit” the sexually explicit conduct
itself. The state concedes that, in this case, the evidence
would not allow a finding that defendant “permitted” any of
the sexually explicit conduct.
         We reject the state’s proposed construction of ORS
163.670(1), which is contrary to the statutory text. The text
of a statute generally is the best evidence of the legislature’s
intent and must be given primary weight in the analysis.
Vasquez v. Double Press Mfg., Inc., 

, 

 (2019). As relevant here, to commit the crime of
display, a person must “permit[ ] … a child to participate or
engage in sexually explicit conduct for any person to observe
or to record in a visual recording.” ORS 163.670(1). The “any
person” who observes or records the conduct may be the same
“person” who “permits” the child to participate or engage in
it. State v. Clay, 

, 

 (2019).
However, as a straightforward grammatical matter, what a
person must “permit” under the statute is a child’s participation or engagement in sexually explicit conduct for observation or recording. ORS 163.670(1); see also State v. Porter,

, 

 (2011) (construing “permit”
to mean “allow” or “make possible,” and holding that “there
was sufficient evidence that defendant permitted his stepdaughter to be used in displays of sexually explicit conduct
in his home”). ORS 163.670 addresses the “most serious
kind of harm covered by this part of the criminal code” and
is meant to prevent “the underlying harm caused by child
sexual abuse” and “the subjection of children under 18 years
of age to sexual exploitation for the purpose of visual recording.” State v. Stoneman, 

, 

(1996).
         The state’s proposed construction of ORS 163.670(1)
is inconsistent with the statutory text and unsupported
by any statutory context or identified legislative history. It
is also irreconcilable with Clay, a decision published after
oral argument in this case, in which we also construed ORS
163.670(1). As explained in Clay, the behavior proscribed by
764                                            State v. Cazee

ORS 163.670(1) is employing, authorizing, permitting, compelling, or inducing a child to participate or engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of a person observing
or recording it. 

 (discussing the “functional relationship” between the defendant’s behavior and
the purpose of the defendant’s behavior, as created by the
word “for”). The state’s proposed construction would make it
the crime of display to either permit a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for observation or recording or observe
or record a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. That
construction is inconsistent with the statutory text and our
prior construction of the statute.
         The trial court therefore erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on the display
counts. The state concedes that there was no evidence that
defendant “permitted” sexually explicit conduct by any
child. It argues only that there was evidence that defendant “permitted” himself to make visual recordings of sexually explicit conduct by children that he witnessed while
engaged in peeping activities. Given the statutory elements,
such evidence was insufficient to prove the crime of display.
Accordingly, defendant was entitled to judgments of acquittal on the six counts of using a child in a display of sexually
explicit conduct, ORS 163.670.
         Convictions for using a child in a display of sexually
explicit conduct, ORS 163.670, reversed; remaining convictions reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.