State v. Stradley, 308 P.3d 284

Defendant and girlfriend Thaxton lived together in an Albany rental home; police executed a search warrant on Nov. 25, 2008.
Officers found 18 Vicodin tablets concealed behind a framed picture in the couple’s living room; defendant admitted illegal possession of those pills.
Thaxton testified (or record shows) no evidence that she knew about the hidden Vicodin; no evidence of her possession or use of Vicodin.
Defendant was convicted of multiple counts including delivery of marijuana, possession of a controlled substance, and frequenting a place where controlled substances are used (ORS 167.222(1)).
The State argued defendant could be guilty of frequenting because he remained in the residence while permitting Thaxton to "keep" (i.e., constructively possess) the pills; defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the frequenting charge.
The trial court denied the motion; on appeal the state conceded merger error for delivery counts but contested sufficiency on the frequenting conviction.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show Thaxton constructively possessed ("kept") the hidden Vicodin for ORS 167.222(1)	Residence occupancy supports inference Thaxton jointly possessed the pills; more than one person can possess the same item	No evidence Thaxton knew about the pills; occupancy alone is insufficient to show constructive possession	Reversed: insufficent evidence that Thaxton knew of or constructively possessed the Vicodin
Whether defendant "permitted" Thaxton to "keep" the drugs (necessary for frequenting)	If Thaxton constructively possessed, defendant permitted her by keeping the shared residence	No proof Thaxton possessed the pills, so defendant could not have permitted possession	Court did not reach merits after finding insufficient proof of Thaxton's possession (defendant could not be liable)

State v. Cervantes, 319 Or 121 (standard for reviewing denial of motion for judgment of acquittal)
State v. Coria, 39 Or App 507 (constructive possession may be established by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Evans, 161 Or App 86 (constructive possession requires knowing exercise of control or right to control)
State v. Wrisley, 138 Or App 344 (contraband in occupied quarters can support inference of knowledge when location/other facts make presence known)
State v. Garcia, 120 Or App 485 (contraband location plus defendant’s handling can support inference of possession)
State v. Nehl, 19 Or App 590 (openly displayed contraband and paraphernalia support inference of possession)
State v. Bauer, 128 Or App 598 (contraband in premises owned/occupied can allow inference of right to control)
State v. Oare, 249 Or 597 (recognizing constructive possession doctrine)