Legal Opinion

State v. Engen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 29, 1999No. 950636049; CA A101586PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.

Defendant appeals from her conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. ORS 475.992(4)(b). The sole issue is whether the state was required to prove not only that defendant knew that she possessed a controlled substance but also that she knew that that substance was methamphetamine. We conclude that, under ORS 161.095(2), ORS 161.115(1), and ORS 475.992(4), the state is not required to prove a defendant’s knowledge of the particular type of controlled substance possessed. Consequently, we affirm.

For purposes of appeal, the material facts are undisputed. Police…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. State v. RaineyOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State v. ButtreyOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  4. United States v. Valencia-GonzalesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
  5. United States v. Richard H. Strange, United States of America v. Charles A. ZamoranoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. State v. ProphetCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  4. State v. RutleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  5. State v. HarperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API