State v. Henry
| Decision Date | 04 November 1992 |
| Citation | 840 P.2d 1335,116 Or.App. 138 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. William James HENRY, Appellant. 91CR1732FE; CA A74189. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Verden L. Hockett, Jr., Roseburg, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Paul Migchelbrink, Certified Law Student, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before WARREN, P.J., and RIGGS and EDMONDS, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(4)(b), assigning error to the court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.
At trial, the state proved that defendant possessed a small quantity, less than 10 milligrams, of methamphetamine. Defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the state failed to prove that the quantity of methamphetamine that he possessed would have had a stimulant effect on a person's central nervous system. He contends that that is an element of the crime of possession of a controlled substance, on the basis of his interpretation of OAR 855-80-022, which provides, in part:
ORS 475.992(4) provides:
A controlled substance is any "drug or its immediate precursor classified in Schedules I through V under the Federal Controlled Substance Act * * *." ORS 475.005(6). The State Board of Pharmacy is authorized to change or add to that list. ORS 475.035. In State v. Sargent, 252 Or. 579, 582, 449 P.2d 845 (1969), the court explained the relationship between statutes that define offenses involving controlled substances and the administrative rules that specify what substances are controlled:
"The law proscribing transactions in dangerous drugs has been determined by the legislature, and the only function left to the administrative body is that of enumerating the specific chemicals that fall within the statutory ban." (Emphasis supplied.)
In OAR...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dominguez v. Barr
...the State Board of Pharmacy to modify or add to Oregon's schedules of controlled substances. Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.035 ; State v. Henry , 840 P.2d 1335, 1336 (1992) ; State v. Eells , 696 P.2d 564, 567 (1985). Because Petitioner does not argue that the Oregon definition of "controlled substa......
-
State v. Ali, No. C2-00-70.
...State v. Allesi, 216 N.W.2d 805, 810 (N.D.1974); Doyle v. State, 511 P.2d 1133, 1136 (Okla. Crim.App.1973); State v. Henry, 116 Or. App. 138, 840 P.2d 1335, 1336 (1992); State v. Johnson, 254 N.W.2d 114, 117 (S.D. 1977); Sheffield v. State, 623 S.W.2d 403, 408 Several of these jurisdictions......
-
People v. Moran
...(1975); State v. Hernandez, 104 N.M. 97, 717 P.2d 73 (App.1986); Doyle v. State, 511 P.2d 1133 (Okla.Crim.App.1973); State v. Henry, 116 Or.App. 138, 840 P.2d 1335 (1992); but see Commonwealth v. Driscoll, 485 Pa. 99, 401 A.2d 312 The Third Circuit in United States v. Picklesimer, supra, ex......
-
State v. Comried
...682, 875 P.2d 1113, 1115-16 (Ct.App.1994) ("any amount" satisfied by showing any identifiable amount of drugs); State v. Henry, 116 Or.App. 138, 840 P.2d 1335, 1336 (Ct.App.1992) (possession-of-drug statute violated by possessing "even a trace" of We agree with the district court that Comri......