Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980
Source:
Section 475.005 — Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors475.html
.
Notes of Decisions
In general
Although generally accepted scientific view is that marijuana is properly classified as Cannabis family Cannabaceae, legislative definition of marijuana as Cannabis family Moraceae is not sufficient to render statute ineffective. State v. Bailey, 41 Or App 375, 597 P2d 1312 (1979)
Fact that experts may disagree as to what is “stalk” or “stem” of marijuana plant after plant has been cut up, or whether seeds are sterile and whether material is dry when weighed does not render this section void for vagueness. State v. Mellinger, 52 Or App 21, 627 P2d 897 (1981)
Although controlled substance is defined by reference to federal act, 21 U.S.C. 811 to 812, statute does not adopt federal scheduling criteria, and Oregon has chosen not to exclude marijuana as Schedule I controlled substance, even though under [former] ORS 475.515 marijuana may be used for medicinal purposes. State v. Eells, 72 Or App 492, 696 P2d 564 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Delivery does not include acceptance of transfer. State v. Frederickson, 92 Or App 223, 757 P2d 1366 (1988)
Where defendant was convicted for delivery of controlled substances, possession of quantity of methamphetamine and heroin consistent with trafficking in controlled substances and possession of items associated with drug trafficking, evidence existed that defendant had taken substantial step toward commission of that crime. State v. Aguilar, 96 Or App 506, 773 P2d 17 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant’s possession of precursor chemicals, laboratory equipment, formulas and other materials necessary to produce methamphetamine constituted preparation and thus, manufacture under this section. State v. Brown, 109 Or App 636, 820 P2d 878 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Mere removal of individual portion from larger quantity of controlled substance does not constitute “packaging or repackaging,” and thus is not “manufacture” of controlled substance. State v. Tellez, 170 Or App 745, 14 P3d 78 (2000)
Offer to sell controlled substance is substantial step toward commission of “delivery” by attempted transfer. State v. Pollock, 189 Or App 38, 73 P3d 297 (2003), aff’d on other grounds, 337 Or 618, 102 P3d 684 (2004)
To prove “attempted” transfer, state’s evidence must give rise to inference that defendant made effort to cause controlled substances to pass from one person to another, rather than simply showing defendant’s purpose in acquiring drugs; overruling State v. Boyd, 92 Or App 51, 756 P2d 1276 (1988). State v. Hubbell, 314 Or App 844, 500 P3d 728 (2021), Sup Ct review allowed
Law Review Citations
Under former similar statute (ORS 474.010)
51 OLR 561 (1972)
In general
87 OLR 783 (2008)