State v. Hobbs

"The phrase 'a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted,' ORS 163.575(1)(b), refers to a place where a principal or substantial use of the place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity." State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358, Or. 451, 459, 365 P.3d 116, 120 (2015).

Defendant appealed conviction of unlawful possession of methamphetamine (Count 1) and endangering the welfare of a minor (Count 2). Defendant assigned error to denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on Count 2 because the state did not present evidence that his home was a place where unlawful activity involving a controlled substance was maintained or conducted. Defendant argued that a reasonable jury, as defined by statute, could not have convicted him of endangering the welfare of a minor. In response, the State argued that a jury could infer that Defendant violated the statute because there was evidence that the minor resided in the house and Defendant regularly used methamphetamine in the house. “The phrase ‘a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted,’ ORS 163.575(1)(b), refers to a place where a principal or substantial use of the place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity.” State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358, Or. 451, 459, 365 P.3d 116, 120 (2015). The Court of Appeals held that the State did not present evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant’s home was a place where “unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted” and therefore the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Count 2 reversed and remanded for resentencing, but otherwise affirmed.