No. 1003 November 19, 2025 139
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
BRANNIN JAMES BENSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Lincoln County Circuit Court
23CR59252; A183821
Sheryl Bachart, Judge.
Submitted October 14, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Neil F. Byl, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
140 State v. Benson
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
online sexual corruption of a child in the first degree, ORS
163.433, and luring a minor, ORS 167.057, stemming from
online interactions he had with a police officer posing as a
14-year-old girl. In two assignments of error, he argues that
the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of
acquittal as to both counts because the state failed to disprove his defense of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reviewing in the light most favorable to the state, State v.
McDaniel,
(2013), we affirm.
Defendant contends that he was entrapped into
committing the crime; that is, that he engaged in the online
interaction with a perceived minor only because he “was
induced to do so by a law enforcement official … for the
purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against [him] in
a criminal prosecution.” ORS 161.275(1). He argues that no
reasonable juror could convict him because, although defendant initiated the interaction, the officer first broached the
topic of engaging in a sexual encounter with defendant, and
repeatedly steered the conversation in a sexual direction.
However, sufficient evidence was presented to the factfinder
that defendant contemplated the conduct and would have
engaged in it without inducement; specifically, defendant
used a fake account, initiated contact with what appeared
to be a 14-year-old girl, was the first to turn the interaction sexual, escalated the interaction by sending sexually
explicit photographs and messages, and first proposed meeting in person. See ORS 161.275(2) (entrapment requires the
state to disprove (1) that the defendant did not contemplate
the proscribed conduct, and (2) that the defendant would not
otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct).
Affirmed.
