Legal Opinion

State v. Vasquez-Rubio

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1996No. CC 93CR-1865; CA A82384; SC S42557PublishedCited by 82 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtUnis, J.

Under Oregon statutory law, “[a] person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a machine gun * * * if the person knowingly possesses any machine gun * * * not registered as required under federal law.” ORS 166.272.

The issue in this case is whether the state is required to prove as an element of that crime that the machine gun that defendant knowingly possessed was “not registered as required under federal law” or whether, instead, the burden is on defendant to prove affirmatively that the gun is registered as required under federal law. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & IndustriesOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. McKean-Coffman v. Employment DivisionOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. TamlerOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  4. State v. ElliottOregon Supreme Court · 1963
  5. State Ex Rel. Mikkelsen v. HillOregon Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by82 opinions

  1. Department of Consumer & Business Services v. MuliroOregon Supreme Court · 2016
  2. Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Doe v. Medford School District 549CCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. Gladhart v. Oregon Vineyard Supply Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Young v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

77 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