State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688

Defendant knocked on Otto’s door around 2–3 a.m., was let in, smoked marijuana with her, made sexual advances, and offered an "incentive."
Defendant told Otto he needed to "make some money," produced sandwich bags, separated a white substance (later identified as methamphetamine), and offered her some; Otto refused and called 9-1-1.
Police arrested defendant nearby and found several baggies of methamphetamine on his person, a glove with methamphetamine in the patrol car, and methamphetamine in Otto’s bathroom — total 3–4 grams.
Defendant was tried and convicted of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine; the jury found the delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900(2)(a), elevating the offense category from 4 to 6. Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on that subfactor at trial; the court denied the motion.
On appeal defendant argued (relying on State v. Villagomez) that the "for consideration" enhancement requires proof of a completed transaction or an agreement/receipt of payment; the state argued intent to exchange (e.g., possessing drugs with intent to sell) sufficed. The court affirmed the conviction but reversed the imposition of attorney fees for lack of financial findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 475.900(2)(a) "is for consideration" requires proof of completed consideration or agreement	State: "is for consideration" can be satisfied by evidence defendant possessed drugs with the purpose of exchanging them (intent to sell); applies to attempted transfers	Defendant: Under Villagomez, the phrase requires proof that defendant received consideration or entered into an agreement to receive consideration (completed or arranged payment)	Court: "is for consideration" (present tense) covers deliveries undertaken with the purpose of obtaining value, including attempted transfers; sufficiency affirmed
Whether trial court could impose appointed attorney fees without evidence of defendant’s financial resources	State conceded error	Defendant: Fees improper absent financial findings	Court: Accepted concession; reversed fee award

State v. Villagomez, 281 Or App 29 (2016) (interpreted "was for consideration" in ORS 475.900(1)(b)(A) to require receipt of or agreement to receive consideration)
State v. Stark, 354 Or 1 (2013) (presumption that legislature is aware of existing statutes when enacting new law)
State v. Rodriguez-Barrera, 213 Or App 56 (2007) (possession with intent to deliver constitutes attempted transfer under ORS 475.005(8))
PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 317 Or 606 (1993) (framework for statutory interpretation)