State v. Engen
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. RaineyOregon Supreme Court · 1985
- State v. ButtreyOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- United States v. Valencia-GonzalesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- 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
- State v. AndrewsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. ProphetCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
- State v. RutleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
- State v. HarperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.