2015 ORS 475.235¹
Burden of proof
  • status of analysis of controlled substance
  • notice of objection

(1) It is not necessary for the state to negate any exemption or exception in ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980) to 475.285 (Short title) and 475.752 (Prohibited acts generally) to 475.980 (Affirmative defense to ORS 475.969, 475.971, 475.975 (1) and 475.976 (1)) in any complaint, information, indictment or other pleading or in any trial, hearing or other proceeding under ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980) to 475.285 (Short title) and 475.752 (Prohibited acts generally) to 475.980 (Affirmative defense to ORS 475.969, 475.971, 475.975 (1) and 475.976 (1)). The burden of proof of any exemption or exception is upon the person claiming it.

(2) In the absence of proof that a person is the duly authorized holder of an appropriate registration or order form issued under ORS 475.005 (Definitions for ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980) to 475.285 (Short title) and 475.752 (Prohibited acts generally) to 475.980 (Affirmative defense to ORS 475.969, 475.971, 475.975 (1) and 475.976 (1)), the person is presumed not to be the holder of the registration or form. The burden of proof is upon the person to rebut the presumption.

(3)(a) When a controlled substance is at issue in a criminal proceeding before a grand jury, at a preliminary hearing, in a proceeding on a district attorney’s information or for purposes of an early disposition program, it is prima facie evidence of the identity of the controlled substance if:

(A) A sample of the controlled substance is tested using a presumptive test for controlled substances;

(B) The test is conducted by a law enforcement officer trained to use the test or by a forensic scientist; and

(C) The test is positive for the particular controlled substance.

(b) When the identity of a controlled substance is established using a presumptive test for purposes of a criminal proceeding before a grand jury, a preliminary hearing, a proceeding on a district attorney’s information or an early disposition program, the defendant, upon notice to the district attorney, may request that the controlled substance be sent to a state police forensic laboratory for analysis.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in all prosecutions in which an analysis of a controlled substance or sample was conducted, a certified copy of the analytical report signed by the director of a state police forensic laboratory or the analyst or forensic scientist conducting the analysis shall be admitted as prima facie evidence of the results of the analytical findings unless the defendant has provided notice of an objection in accordance with subsection (5) of this section.

(5) If the defendant intends to object at trial to the admission of a certified copy of an analytical report as provided in subsection (4) of this section, not less than 15 days prior to trial the defendant shall file written notice of the objection with the court and serve a copy on the district attorney.

(6) As used in this section:

(a) "Analyst" means a person employed by the Department of State Police to conduct analysis in forensic laboratories established by the department under ORS 181A.150 (Forensic laboratories).

(b) "Presumptive test" includes, but is not limited to, chemical tests using Marquis reagent, Duquenois-Levine reagent, Scott reagent system or modified Chen’s reagent. [1977 c.745 §23; 1989 c.194 §1; 1995 c.440 §6; 1997 c.346 §1; 2001 c.870 §14; 2003 c.538 §1; 2007 c.636 §§1,2; 2009 c.610 §8]

Notes of Decisions

Where in­for­ma­­tion charged defendant with pos­ses­sion of marijuana, but did not specify amount, it was error for court to construe it as charging only viola­tion because state is not re­quired to negate statutory excep­tions in charging instru­ment. State v. Wadekamper, 68 Or App 750, 683 P2d 168 (1984)

Relieving state of burden of calling crim­i­nalist who prepared report deprives defendant of due process right to require that state prove all ele­ments of crime charged. Wigglesworth v. State of Oregon, 49 F3d 578 (9th Cir. 1995)

Laboratory report prepared at request of police for use in prosecuting specific defendant is testimonial evidence. State v. Miller, 208 Or App 424, 144 P3d 1052 (2006), on reconsidera­tion210 Or App 176, 149 P3d 1251 (2006)

Requiring defendant to sub­poe­na crim­i­nalist who prepared laboratory report introduced by state violates defendant's right to confront witnesses. State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007)

Chapter 475

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 561 (1972); 69 OLR 171 (1990)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 475—Controlled Substances; Illegal Drug Cleanup; Paraphernalia; Precursors, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors475.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 475, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano475.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.