State v. McBride, 281 P.3d 605

Defendant lived in Freeman's home helping with a marijuana operation; Freeman’s 15-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old friend lived there too.
Freeman instructed defendant to exclude certain people and to provide teenagers with marijuana; Freeman and defendant used marijuana with the teens.
Defendant was charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor and drug offenses; trial court denied a motion for judgment of acquittal on the child-endangerment counts.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on child-endangerment grounds; this court granted review to address the interpretation of 'permits' in ORS 163.575(l)(b).
Evidence showed defendant’s drug activity and caretaker role but no affirmative conduct authorizing or making possible the teens’ presence.
The issue centers on whether a person must have authority—legal or otherwise—to 'permit' a minor to enter or remain where illegal drug activity occurs; the court ultimately reverses the child-endangerment convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant’s conduct satisfied ORS 163.575(l)(b) by 'permitting' minors to enter or remain.	McBride supports broad 'permit' meaning.	Linder argues 'permit' requires affirmative action/authority.	No; statute not satisfied; convictions reversed.

State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (interprets text, context, and legislative history for statutory interpretation of ORS 163.575)
State v. Hodges, 254 Or 21 (1969) (discusses vagueness and aims of child-protection statutes)
State v. McBride, 242 Or App 594 (2011) (interprets 'permit' in ORS 163.575 and its limitations)