I. Charlotte Corday was likely not in violation of ORS 475.840 because she did not have possession of the marijuana plant.
Under Oregon statute it is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.840 to 475.980.
The only issue in dispute is whether Corday had possession of the marijuana. Accordingly, the remainder of this memo will focus on this issue.
A. Corday likely did not possess the marijuana because she had neither actual nor constructive possession.
The Court has determined possession to be defined as, “to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property. This definition codifies actual and constructive possession. To possess a thing traditionally means to control it, and actual possession and constructive possession are different types of control.”
Here Corday never had actual possession of the marijuana, thus the remainder of this memorandum will focus exclusively on constructive possession.
Constructive possession is a …show more content…
In State v. Barger, the Internet cache of the defendant’s computer contained images of child pornography. An Internet cache automatically saves temporary files of all websites accessed. The court held that Barger’s ownership of the computer and consequential responsibility for its contents did not constitute constructive possession because, although he possessed the ability to save, print, or send the images, no evidence indicates that he exercised that control. According to the court, “there is no support for the idea that…a mere unexercised ability to manipulate a thing can constitute constructive possession of
Under Oregon statute it is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.840 to 475.980.
The only issue in dispute is whether Corday had possession of the marijuana. Accordingly, the remainder of this memo will focus on this issue.
A. Corday likely did not possess the marijuana because she had neither actual nor constructive possession.
The Court has determined possession to be defined as, “to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property. This definition codifies actual and constructive possession. To possess a thing traditionally means to control it, and actual possession and constructive possession are different types of control.”
Here Corday never had actual possession of the marijuana, thus the remainder of this memorandum will focus exclusively on constructive possession.
Constructive possession is a …show more content…
In State v. Barger, the Internet cache of the defendant’s computer contained images of child pornography. An Internet cache automatically saves temporary files of all websites accessed. The court held that Barger’s ownership of the computer and consequential responsibility for its contents did not constitute constructive possession because, although he possessed the ability to save, print, or send the images, no evidence indicates that he exercised that control. According to the court, “there is no support for the idea that…a mere unexercised ability to manipulate a thing can constitute constructive possession of