State v. Craigen

"The subcategories in OAR 213-018-0070 assign a different degree of criminal seriousness based on the type of contraband in the inmate's possession, not the manner in which the inmate used the contraband."

Defendant appealed his conviction for Supplying Contraband in a Correctional Facility. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal arguing the proper definition of a “dangerous weapon” was not employed by the trial court. On appeal, Defendant further argued the definition in ORS 161.015(1), requiring actual or threatened use, should be applied rather than the definition in the administrative rules. In response, the State argued the definition in OAR 213-018-0070 was proper because it did not require actual or attempted use and the definition used in ORS 161.015 was not explicitly referenced in this rule. As such, the plain meaning of “dangerous weapon” should apply. "The subcategories in OAR 213-018-0070 assign a different degree of criminal seriousness based on the type of contraband in the inmate's possession, not the manner in which the inmate used the contraband." The Court found that the trial correct did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal ruling that OAR 213-018-0070 did not “require evidence of use or threatened use.”  Thus, the Court held that the definition of a "dangerous weapon" in ORS 161.015(1) is not applicable because it would effectively lower the degree of seriousness of the dangerous contraband if the weapon was never used. Affirmed.