State v. Makin

360 Or. 238 (2016) · Supreme Court of Oregon · September 15, 2016 · No. SC S063440; CA A153309; CC C100549CR

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court considered whether first-degree child neglect under ORS 163.547 applies when a child is present in a vehicle where controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them at an unspecified future time. The court held that the statute's reference to controlled substances being criminally delivered does not include possession with intent to deliver, based on the statutory text and legislative history. The court reversed the defendant's child-neglect convictions while affirming or remanding other convictions as described in the disposition.

Court
Supreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the Court
Kistler, J.; Balmer, Chief Justice; Kistler, Justice; Walters, Justice; Landau, Justice; Baldwin, Justice; Brewer, Justice; Armstrong, Justice pro tempore
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Decision date
September 15, 2016
Docket number
SC S063440; CA A153309; CC C100549CR
Procedural posture
Defendant sought review of the Court of Appeals' affirmance without discussion of his first-degree child-neglect convictions. The Supreme Court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to support those convictions under ORS 163.547(1)(a)(A), following defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
Standard of review
On a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and asks whether a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty. Statutory meaning is determined by examining text, context, and legislative history.
Precedential value
Published Oregon Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Robert Clate Makin v. State of Oregon
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

statutory interpretationlegislative historycriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawstatutory interpretationchild neglectcontrolled substances

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the phrase "a vehicle where controlled substances are being criminally delivered" in ORS 163.547(1)(a)(A) includes a vehicle in which controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them at some unspecified time in the future.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for first-degree child neglect.

Holdings

  1. First-degree child neglect under ORS 163.547 does not include knowingly leaving or allowing a child under 16 years of age to stay in a vehicle where controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them at an unspecified time in the future.
  2. The evidence was insufficient to support defendant's convictions for first-degree child neglect because it established, at most, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver at an undefined future time, not a delivery occurring while the children were in the vehicle.

Key quotations

We accordingly hold that first-degree child neglect, as defined in ORS 163.547, does not include knowingly leaving or allowing a child under 16 years of age to stay in a vehicle where controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them. (256)
Because the state does not argue that the evidence in this case gives rise to any inference other than possession with intent to deliver, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision to the extent it upheld defendant’s convictions for first-degree child neglect. (256)

Factual background

A police officer stopped defendant's vehicle for a traffic violation while defendant's three children, all under 16, were in the car. Officers found approximately 27.5 grams of methamphetamine on defendant, along with scales, baggies, drug records, syringes, and cotton balls in the vehicle. The evidence supported an inference that defendant possessed the methamphetamine with the intent to sell it at an unspecified point in the future, but there was no evidence that he was actually delivering or in the process of delivering methamphetamine to an identified buyer while the children were present.

Procedural history

The Washington County Circuit Court convicted defendant of delivery, manufacturing, and possession of methamphetamine and three counts of first-degree child neglect. The Court of Appeals affirmed the possession, delivery, and child-neglect convictions but reversed and remanded the manufacturing conviction for a venue-related proceeding. On review, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the child-neglect convictions, affirmed the other portions of the Court of Appeals decision challenged or left unchallenged on review, and remanded for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. Defendant's first-degree child-neglect convictions were reversed; the manufacturing conviction remained reversed and remanded for defendant to contest venue, while the delivery and possession convictions were affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…