State v. Dave

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dave

176 P.3d 424, 217 Or. App. 509, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 65

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 23, 2008

DocketCF040734; A132102

StatusPublished

This text of 176 P.3d 424 (State v. Dave) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dave, 176 P.3d 424, 217 Or. App. 509, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 65 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. Former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to exclude a crime laboratory report on the ground that ORS 475.235 unconstitutionally shifted the burden of production to defendant. The state concedes that, under State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007), the trial court erred in admitting the report, but argues that the error was harmless. On the record before us, we agree with the state’s concession. However, we disagree that the error was harmless, inasmuch as a central issue at trial was whether the state proved that the substance found in defendant’s possession was a controlled substance.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. Former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to exclude a crime laboratory report on the ground that ORS 475.235 unconstitutionally shifted the burden of production to defendant. The state concedes that, under State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007), the trial court erred in admitting the report, but argues that the error was harmless. On the record before us, we agree with the state’s concession. However, we disagree that the error was harmless, inasmuch as a central issue at trial was whether the state proved that the substance found in defendant’s possession was a controlled substance.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 P.3d 424, 217 Or. App. 509, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dave-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack