State v. Oare
| Citation | 439 P.2d 885,249 Or. 597 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Mikkal Robert OARE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1968 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Jamie G. Hunter, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Porter & Bach, Eugene.
John E. Moore, Deputy Dist. Atty., Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was John B. Leahy, Dist. Atty., Eugene.
Before SLOAN, P.J., and GOODWIN and HOLMAN, JJ.
Defendant appealed from his conviction of the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana which resulted from a trial by the court without a jury.
The principal issue raised on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of defendant's possession of the drug to sustain a conviction.
The police were in the possession of a warrant for the arrest of Michael Sigari and the search of his home. Three other persons lived there with him. Prior to going to the front door Sigari was seen through the window putting something in or taking something out of the medicine cabinet in the bathroom. An officer knocked upon the front door and in response a peephole in the door was opened and closed and footsteps were heard retreating from the door. The officer announced the authority of his warrant and upon the door not being opened, he opened it by force.
Upon going into the bathroom the officer observed Sigari standing immediately in front of the toilet bowl while leaning over looking into it. Alongside and slightly behind him, also leaning over and looking into the bowl, was the defendant. The water in the bowl was agitated and in it were some plastic sacks containing marijuana, an unused marijuana cigarette, the butt of another marijuana cigarette, as well as shreds of the same material. On the back of the toilet was a box containing shreds of marijuana. On a chest of drawers immediately in front of the toilet bowl was a lighted marijuana cigarette.
Defendant did not reside in the house. His person was searched and no evidence of marijuana was found upon him. There were at least two other persons besides the defendant and Sigari in the house at the time of the execution of the warrant.
It is our opinion that there was insufficient evidence of the defendant's possession of the marijuana to warrant conviction. The fact that defendant had none of the narcotic upon his person is not completely determinative of the question of his possession of it. A person may have constructive as well as actual possession of contraband. However, the evidence was insufficient to raise an inference of constructive possession. Defendant was a visitor at the home of Sigari. No inference can be drawn that he had possession of articles found in the house without in some way identifying him with their control. Evidence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barnthouse
...State v. Barger, 349 Or. 553, 559, 247 P.3d 309, adh'd to as modified on recons., 350 Or. 233, 253 P.3d 1030 (2011) ; State v. Oare, 249 Or. 597, 599, 439 P.2d 885 (1968) ( “Evidence of the control or the right to control is necessary to constructive possession”). We supplement the state's ......
-
State v. Sparks
...mere proximity to drugs is not sufficient to prove possession when other individuals are also in proximity to the drugs. State v. Oare, 249 Or. 597, 599–600, 439 P.2d 885 (1968). Here, the police discovered the LSD in the drawer of a dresser in the master bedroom that defendant shared with ......
-
State v. Sparks
...mere proximity to drugs is not sufficient to prove possession when other individuals are also in proximity to the drugs. State v. Oare, 249 Or. 597, 599–600, 439 P.2d 885 (1968). Here, the police discovered the LSD in the drawer of a dresser in the master bedroom that defendant shared with ......
-
State v. Campbell
...we must determine whether the error was harmful. We hold it was not. While knowledge is an element of the offense see State v. Oare, 249 Or. 597, 439 P.2d 885 (1968) we see no reasonable inference which would be drawn from the facts in this case except that defendant knew of the presence of......