State v. James, 338 P.3d 782

Defendant (37) rented a room in Tilahun’s house; Tilahun hosted a party attended by many high-school–aged guests (14–17).
Multiple minors (H, LC, R) drank vodka found in the kitchen; some guests brought their own alcohol.
Deputies arrived, observed many underage attendees and multiple bottles of hard liquor; defendant initially denied minors were present, appeared intoxicated, and later said she didn’t know about the party.
Defendant was charged with three counts of furnishing alcohol to minors (ORS 471.410(2)) and one count of endangering a minor (ORS 163.575); convicted on all counts at trial.
On appeal defendant challenged only the furnishing convictions, arguing the statute was misinterpreted and the evidence was insufficient to show she made the vodka available to the named minors.
The court reversed the three furnishing convictions and affirmed the endangerment conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What does “otherwise make available” in ORS 471.410(2) mean?	Broad causation: acts/omissions that are a but‑for or substantial factor in a minor’s acquisition of alcohol.	Means affirmative provision: purchasing, serving, pouring, or leaving alcohol out for consumption.	A person “otherwise make[s] available” alcohol when the person authorizes minors’ access to a supply of alcohol over which the person exercises control.
Was evidence sufficient that defendant “otherwise made available” the vodka consumed by H, LC, and R?	Evidence (presence of bottles, defendant’s intoxication, guests drinking) permitted inference defendant controlled the supply.	Evidence was insufficient to connect defendant to the specific vodka; at most acquiescence.	Insufficient: no direct or adequate circumstantial evidence that defendant controlled the particular supply of vodka consumed by the charged minors; convictions reversed.

State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47 (standard for reviewing acquittal motions)
State v. Hall, 327 Or. 568 (sufficiency-of-the-evidence principles)
Wiener v. Gamma Phi, ATO Frat., 258 Or. 632 (purpose of ORS 471.410(2): protect minors from alcohol)
ZRZ Realty v. Beneficial Fire & Casualty Ins., 349 Or. 117 (ejusdem generis principle in statutory construction)
State v. Barraza, 206 Or. App. 505 (probable-cause context recognizing need to link source of alcohol to defendant)
State v. Irving, 74 Or. App. 600 (focus on whether defendant was the source of alcohol)
Baker v. Croslin, 264 Or. App. 196 (control over alcohol supply as key in social-host liability)
Sagadin v. Ripper, 175 Cal. App. 3d 1141 (control of alcohol supply suffices without pouring the drink)