444 P.3d 527
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant was stopped by police; a witness retrieved a sunglasses case defendant had thrown from his car containing two syringes, cotton swabs, and 9.84 grams of methamphetamine divided into seven small plastic "bindles."
- Five bindles were ~1.75–1.87 g each ("teeners"); two were ~0.36–0.44 g each ("50-sacks"); one empty baggie was also present.
- Three experienced narcotics officers testified about common user amounts and distribution practices, explaining that users rarely carry large quantities and that prepackaged, commonly sold amounts indicate distribution.
- Defendant was charged with possession and unlawful delivery of methamphetamine; he moved for a judgment of acquittal on the delivery count at the close of the state's case.
- Trial court denied the motion; jury convicted on delivery. Defendant appealed, arguing quantity and packaging were insufficient to infer intent to deliver absent other paraphernalia or evidence of sales.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether possession of 9.84 g of methamphetamine divided into seven packages permits a reasonable factfinder to infer intent to deliver | State: total weight plus prepackaging into commonly sold amounts supports an inference of intent to transfer | Defendant: amounts are merely multiple "user" portions (akin to a "six-pack") and, without paraphernalia or other evidence, do not show intent to deliver | Yes. The combination of total quantity and prepackaging allowed a reasonable jury to infer intent to deliver |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kaylor, 252 Or. App. 688 (Or. Ct. App.) (standards for reviewing denial of judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Alvarez-Garcia, 212 Or. App. 663 (Or. Ct. App.) (prepackaging plus quantity can support inference of intent to deliver)
- State v. Fulmer, 105 Or. App. 334 (Or. Ct. App.) (individual packages plus paraphernalia supported delivery conviction)
- State v. Aguilar, 96 Or. App. 506 (Or. Ct. App.) (multiple packaged quantities and delivery paraphernalia supported conviction)
- State v. Miller, 196 Or. App. 354 (Or. Ct. App.) (possession without packaging/paraphernalia insufficient to infer delivery)
- State v. Boyd, 92 Or. App. 51 (Or. Ct. App.) (possessing with intent to transfer may constitute an attempt/substantial step)