## Facts

- Timothy Alan Hinkhouse learned he was HIV-positive in 1989.
- In 1990, his probation officer repeatedly explained HIV transmission and seriousness, told him that infecting someone would be “killing someone,” and warned, “If you infect anyone, that is murder.”
- Despite those warnings, Hinkhouse engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with multiple women over time without disclosing his HIV status.
- He refused to use condoms with several partners and at times denied being HIV-positive when asked.
- One victim, P.B., began a sexual relationship with Hinkhouse at age 15; he refused condoms, they did not discuss HIV, and after she later tested HIV-positive he did not deny her accusation and “brushed it off.”
- Hinkhouse signed an agreement requiring him to notify his probation officer before sexual contact, but he ignored the obligation and continued unprotected intercourse without disclosure.
- Evidence showed he consistently used condoms with at least one woman he cared about, supporting an inference that he understood the risk and could control his conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hinkhouse intended to cause death or serious physical injury by engaging in unprotected sex while knowingly HIV-positive and concealing his condition, supporting convictions for attempted murder and attempted first-degree assault.
2. On reconsideration, whether a challenged hearsay statement could be excluded from the sufficiency analysis and, if so, whether the remaining evidence still supported the verdicts.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for ten counts of attempted murder and ten counts of attempted first-degree assault.
- The court held the trial court properly denied Hinkhouse’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence permitted an inference of intent to kill or cause serious physical injury.
- On reconsideration, the court assumed the challenged hearsay statement could not be used as substantive evidence, modified its reasoning to remove reliance on it, and adhered to the affirmance because the remaining evidence was sufficient.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing denial of a judgment of acquittal, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and asks whether a rational factfinder could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the defendant’s knowledge, statements, and a sustained pattern of conduct.
- A jury may infer intent to kill or cause serious physical injury from evidence that a defendant understood a lethal risk, repeatedly created that risk, and took steps (such as concealment or deception) to keep victims unaware and exposed.
- Selective use of precautions with some partners may support an inference that the defendant appreciated the risk and chose not to reduce it with others, bearing on intent rather than mere carelessness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld multiple attempt convictions, concluding that repeated unprotected intercourse, concealment of HIV status, and proof that the defendant understood HIV’s potentially fatal consequences allowed a rational jury to find intent to cause death or serious physical injury, even without reliance on disputed hearsay.


State v. Hinkhouse, 139 Or. App. 446, 912 P.2d 921 (Or. Ct. App. 1996)