Endangering the Welfare of a Minor
by: Ryan • January 10, 2012 • no comments
(Importing text file) |
m (Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}") |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I don't know if McBride will reach that issue, but I thought I'd start highlighting some old posts you might not know to look for. | I don't know if McBride will reach that issue, but I thought I'd start highlighting some old posts you might not know to look for. | ||
| − | {{wl-publish: 2012-01-10 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }} | + | {{wl-publish: 2012-01-10 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan:Ryan Scott }} |
Latest revision as of 12:06, August 10, 2013
The Oregon Supreme Court has taken review of State v. McBride. The question presented is:
"For purposes of imposing criminal liability under ORS 163.575(1)(b), what is the correct interpretation of the phrase '[p]ermits a person under 18 years of age to enter or remain in a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted'?"
The specific issue in McBride reminds me of an old argument I used to encourage (but never had a chance to make myself) that the phrase "maintained or conducted" did not include mere possession. If the legislature intended possession, they would have said possession. Consequently, just because a 15 year-old is in a house at the same time marijuana is possessed, that's not enough to constitute endangering. I wrote about making that argument to the court here . There's even a sample motion.
I don't know if McBride will reach that issue, but I thought I'd start highlighting some old posts you might not know to look for.
