State v. Gotchall

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gotchall

43 P.3d 1121, 180 Or. App. 458, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 530

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 3, 2002

Docket99-03-32388; A108861

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 43 P.3d 1121 (State v. Gotchall) 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. Gotchall, 43 P.3d 1121, 180 Or. App. 458, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

*459 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a conviction for possession of a controlled substance and for supplying contraband. In her first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the motion. State v. Amaya, 176 Or App 35, 29 P3d 1177 (2001).

In her second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal on two counts of supplying contraband. In the first count, defendant was charged with introducing contraband into a correctional facility. See ORS 162.185(1)(a). Following State v. Tippetts, 180 Or App 350, 43 P3d 455 (2002), we reverse her conviction on that count. In the second count, defendant was charged with possessing contraband while being confined to a correctional facility. See ORS 162.185(1)(b). Although subsection (1)(b) prohibits different conduct than subsection (1)(a), the state does not argue that, in this case, that difference demands a different result from the one that we reach, under subsection (1)(a). If defendant did not voluntarily introduce contraband into the correctional facility, we do not see how, on these facts, she could voluntarily possess that contraband once she was confined in the facility. Accordingly, we also reverse the second count.

Reversed as to both counts of supplying contraband; otherwise affirmed.

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

*459 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a conviction for possession of a controlled substance and for supplying contraband. In her first assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s ruling on the motion. State v. Amaya, 176 Or App 35, 29 P3d 1177 (2001).

In her second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal on two counts of supplying contraband. In the first count, defendant was charged with introducing contraband into a correctional facility. See ORS 162.185(1)(a). Following State v. Tippetts, 180 Or App 350, 43 P3d 455 (2002), we reverse her conviction on that count. In the second count, defendant was charged with possessing contraband while being confined to a correctional facility. See ORS 162.185(1)(b). Although subsection (1)(b) prohibits different conduct than subsection (1)(a), the state does not argue that, in this case, that difference demands a different result from the one that we reach, under subsection (1)(a). If defendant did not voluntarily introduce contraband into the correctional facility, we do not see how, on these facts, she could voluntarily possess that contraband once she was confined in the facility. Accordingly, we also reverse the second count.

Reversed as to both counts of supplying contraband; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 P.3d 1121, 180 Or. App. 458, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gotchall-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack