State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela
358 Or. 451
| Or. | 2015Background
- Defendant (Gonzalez-Valenzuela) was stopped in a borrowed car with her two daughters; officer found small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, and methadone in her purse after consented search.
- Defendant was convicted of drug possession offenses and two counts of child endangerment under ORS 163.575(1)(b) (permitting a minor to enter or remain in a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted).
- At bench trial defendant argued (1) possession is a passive state, not “activity,” and (2) a brief, isolated incident of possession does not make the location a “place where unlawful activity… is maintained or conducted.” Trial court convicted; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Supreme Court (Linder, J.) considered statutory construction: meaning of “activity” and of “a place where unlawful activity… is maintained or conducted.”
- Court held that illegal possession can be an “unlawful activity involving controlled substances,” but the statute’s phrase refers to places principally or substantially used to facilitate drug activity (i.e., more than a brief, isolated incident).
- Applying that standard, the Court reversed the child-endangerment convictions because the facts established only a brief, incidental possession in the car.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gonzalez-Valenzuela) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether illegal drug possession constitutes “unlawful activity involving controlled substances” under ORS 163.575(1)(b) | Possession is unlawful activity and therefore fits the statute’s language | Possession is a passive state, not an "activity," so it should not trigger subsection (b) | Possession can constitute unlawful “activity”; statute’s definitions and context treat omissions/possession as acts |
| Whether a brief, isolated incident of possession in a place makes that location “a place where unlawful activity… is maintained or conducted” | The plain meaning of "maintained" or "conducted" includes brief incidents; no regularity requirement | The phrase refers to places principally or substantially used for drug activity (drug houses, etc.); single incidents insufficient | The phrase requires that the place be one whose principal or substantial use is to facilitate unlawful drug activity; brief isolated incidents are insufficient |
| Proper role of verb tense and dictionary definitions in construing "is maintained or conducted" | Simple present tense and dictionary meanings support a broad reading that covers isolated incidents | Simple present tense and contextual usage support habitual or characteristic use—i.e., regularity—so statute targets drug‑type places | Verb tense and dictionaries are ambiguous; context and statutory framework favor reading tied to criminal‑nuisance/drug‑house concepts |
| Whether the trial record supported a child‑endangerment conviction based on the car facts | The car where defendant possessed drugs qualified under the statute | The car possession was an incidental, brief occurrence and not a qualifying "place" under the statute | The record showed only a brief, isolated possession in a borrowed car; legally insufficient to sustain child‑endangerment convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zweigart, 344 Or 619 (standard for reviewing denial of acquittal)
- State v. Walker, 356 Or 4 (statutory construction methodology)
- State v. McBride, 352 Or 159 (focus of ORS 163.575(1)(b) is place, not mere exposure)
- State v. Smith, 31 Or App 749 (interpreting “place” in drug‑promotion statute as certain type of place; single occasion insufficient)
- State v. Nease, 46 Or 433 (historical nuisance law and purpose of statutes addressing places used for vicious purposes)