Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that, to establish that a methamphetamine delivery was "for consideration" under ORS 475.900(2)(a), the state must prove either an agreement to sell the drugs or a completed sale. Evidence that the defendant possessed the drugs with an intent to sell them was insufficient. The court reversed the Court of Appeals in part and remanded the case for resentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether ORS 475.900(2)(a)'s requirement that a methamphetamine delivery be "for consideration" can be established by evidence that the defendant possessed the drugs with the intent to sell them.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the crime-category-6 sentence enhancement for delivery of methamphetamine for consideration.
Holdings
- To prove that a methamphetamine delivery is "for consideration" under ORS 475.900(2)(a), the state must offer evidence that the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the drugs or completed a sale of them. Evidence that the defendant merely possessed the drugs with intent to sell them is insufficient.
- The evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant's methamphetamine delivery was for consideration, so the trial court erred by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on that enhancement.
Key quotations
“Evidence that a defendant possessed the drugs with the intent to sell them is insufficient.” (at 640)
“Based on the statute's text, context, and legislative history, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" as the phrase is used in ORS 475.900(2)(a), the state must demonstrate an agreement to sell the drugs at issue or a completed sale of those drugs; evidence that a defendant possessed the drugs with the intent to sell them is insufficient.” (at 649-50)
Factual background
Defendant brought methamphetamine into Otto's apartment, separated some of it into a bag, stated that he needed to make money, and left some methamphetamine on Otto's bathroom floor. Otto reported that defendant asked whether she or someone she knew wanted to buy some of the substance. Police later found additional methamphetamine on defendant and in a patrol car, but the evidence did not establish a completed sale or an agreement to sell the delivered methamphetamine.
Procedural history
Defendant was charged with, and convicted by a jury of, unlawful delivery of methamphetamine for consideration. The trial court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the relevant ruling. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review, reversed the Court of Appeals and circuit court in part, and remanded for resentencing.
Remand instructions
Remand to the circuit court for resentencing. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court were affirmed in part and reversed in part; the attorney-fee ruling was not at issue before the Oregon Supreme Court.