State v. Delaney

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Delaney

71 P.3d 93, 187 Or. App. 717, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 624

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 15, 2003

Docket0006-34554, A112949

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 71 P.3d 93 (State v. Delaney) 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. Delaney, 71 P.3d 93, 187 Or. App. 717, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 624 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

*718 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of theft of lost or mislaid property, ORS 164.065, possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992, and supplying contraband by introducing it into a correctional facility, ORS 162.185. She appeals only her convictions for supplying contraband. We reverse.

After defendant’s arrest on the theft charges, she was taken to the Multnomah County Detention Center. Later, she said that she needed medical attention, and she was taken to a hospital. While at those places, searches of her clothes and her person resulted in the discovery of tar heroin and crack cocaine. At a stipulated facts trial, the trial court rejected her arguments that she did not voluntarily introduce the drugs into the Detention Center. That was error. State v. Tippetts, 180 Or App 350, 43 P3d 455 (2002). That conclusion does not change even if we assume, as the state appears to argue, that defendant’s actions were so inept that her arrest and the discovery of the contraband were readily foreseeable consequences.

Because defendant did not move for a judgment of acquittal, we reverse and remand for a new trial rather than reversing outright.

Convictions for supplying contraband reversed and remanded for new trial; otherwise affirmed.

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

*718 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of theft of lost or mislaid property, ORS 164.065, possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992, and supplying contraband by introducing it into a correctional facility, ORS 162.185. She appeals only her convictions for supplying contraband. We reverse.

After defendant’s arrest on the theft charges, she was taken to the Multnomah County Detention Center. Later, she said that she needed medical attention, and she was taken to a hospital. While at those places, searches of her clothes and her person resulted in the discovery of tar heroin and crack cocaine. At a stipulated facts trial, the trial court rejected her arguments that she did not voluntarily introduce the drugs into the Detention Center. That was error. State v. Tippetts, 180 Or App 350, 43 P3d 455 (2002). That conclusion does not change even if we assume, as the state appears to argue, that defendant’s actions were so inept that her arrest and the discovery of the contraband were readily foreseeable consequences.

Because defendant did not move for a judgment of acquittal, we reverse and remand for a new trial rather than reversing outright.

Convictions for supplying contraband reversed and remanded for new trial; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 P.3d 93, 187 Or. App. 717, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-delaney-orctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack