Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHELLE WITHNELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2012-11-07
Citations: 253 Or. App. 476
Docket Number: CR080258; A143800
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHELLE WITHNELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 253
Pages: 476–477

Head Matter:
Submitted March 22,
reversed November 7, 2012
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHELLE WITHNELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Yamhill County Circuit Court
CR080258; A143800
290 P3d 908
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jedediah Peterson, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of hindering prosecution, ORS 162.325, and challenges the trial court's denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal because the state did not prove the allegations of the indictment. The issue presented here is identical to that in State v. Hansen, 253 Or App 407, 290 P3d 847 (2012). Because defendant was tried jointly with the defendant in Hansen, the evidentiary record is also identical. For the reasons stated in Hansen, the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Reversed.