State v. Cotter

794                     May 30, 2024               No. 360

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
              SCOTT ANTHONY COTTER,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
              Lincoln County Circuit Court
                  23CR15583; A181978

  Amanda R. Benjamin, Judge.
  Submitted April 30, 2024.
  Scott Cotter filed the brief pro se.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
  TOOKEY, P. J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)           795

        TOOKEY, P. J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one
count of reckless driving, ORS 811.140, for unlawfully and
recklessly driving “a vehicle upon a highway or premises
open to the public in a manner that endangered the safety of
persons or property,” and two counts of recklessly endangering another person, ORS 163.195, for unlawfully and recklessly engaging “in conduct that created a substantial risk
of serious physical injury” to children “on the beach.”
         Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s denial
of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the
evidence regarding defendant’s conduct was legally insufficient to support his convictions for reckless driving and
recklessly endangering another person. The state agrees
with the defendant’s framing of the assignment of error in
this case.
         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 inferences, could find the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Hedgpeth, 

, 

 (2019) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
         We have reviewed the record in this case, including
the officer’s body camera footage as well as the photographic
evidence. Defendant drove so as to make “spinnies” on the
beach. Witnesses testified that there were “people walking
around,” and “a lot of cars and kids” on the beach, and that
it was “busy” there. After one of the witnesses asked defendant about defendant doing “spinnies” on the beach, defendant threw his cane at the witness; the cane hit the witness.
Defendant also acknowledged that he made “spinnies” on
the beach and that he knew others were on the beach. The
evidence was sufficient on all the offenses.
        Affirmed.