163.547 Child
neglect in the first degree.
(1)(a) A person having custody or control of a child under 16 years of age
commits the crime of child neglect in the first degree if the person knowingly
leaves the child, or allows the child to stay:
(A) In a vehicle
where controlled substances or cannabinoid extracts as defined in ORS 475C.009
are being criminally delivered or manufactured;
(B) In or upon
premises, or in the immediate proximity of premises, where a cannabinoid
extract as defined in ORS 475C.009 is being processed, if the premises have not
been licensed under ORS 475C.085;
(C) In or upon
premises and in the immediate proximity where controlled substances are
criminally delivered or manufactured for consideration or profit or where a
chemical reaction involving one or more precursor substances:
(i) Is occurring
as part of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance or grinding, soaking
or otherwise breaking down a precursor substance for the unlawful manufacture
of a controlled substance; or
(ii) Has occurred
as part of unlawfully manufacturing a controlled substance or grinding, soaking
or otherwise breaking down a precursor substance for the unlawful manufacture
of a controlled substance and the premises have not been certified as fit for use
under ORS 453.885; or
(D) In or upon
premises that have been determined to be not fit for use under ORS 453.855 to
453.912.
(b) As used in
this subsection, “vehicle” and “premises” do not include public places, as
defined in ORS 161.015.
(2) Child neglect
in the first degree is a Class B felony.
(3) Subsection
(1) of this section does not apply if the controlled substance is marijuana and
is delivered for no consideration.
(4) The Oregon
Criminal Justice Commission shall classify child neglect in the first degree as
crime category 6 of the sentencing guidelines grid of the commission if the
controlled substance being delivered or manufactured is methamphetamine. [1991
c.832 §1; 2001 c.387 §1; 2001 c.870 §11; 2005 c.708 §2; 2017 c.21 §44]
Note: 163.547 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 163
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case:
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 18× “For the reasons below, we reverse and remand on defendant’s convictions for first-degree child neglect, ORS 163.547, reverse the conviction for possession of LSD, ORS 475.”
State v. MacK, 183 P.3d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 17× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for child neglect in the first degree *192 under ORS 163.547(1)(a) (2001), amended by Or. Laws 2005, ch.”
State v. Makin, 381 P.3d 799 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 8× “We accordingly hold that first-degree child neglect, as defined in ORS 163.547, does not include knowingly leaving or allowing a child under 16 years of age to stay in a vehicle where controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them.”
State v. Porter, 249 P.3d 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “575, or “on premises,” ORS 163.547, where the offense occurred. ORS 163.”
State v. Wheelon, 903 P.2d 399 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “ORS 163.547. Defendants moved to controvert, arguing that, among other things, the affidavit gives the false impression that the two citizen informants viewed defendants' premises at different times, when they actually viewed the premises at the same time.”
State v. Barajas, 268 P.3d 732 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“894; and first-degree child neglect, ORS 163.547. Because we conclude that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s right to present a closing argument, we reverse and remand.”
State v. Reiland, 958 P.2d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “ORS 163.547(1). 2 We review the trial court’s decision as a matter of law, State v.”
State v. Culley, 108 P.3d 1179 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“992), first-degree child neglect (ORS 163.547), and endangering the welfare of a minor (ORS 163.”
State v. Drown, 263 P.3d 1057 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“The 1991 amendment was necessary because the legislature created a new crime that year — child neglect in the first degree, ORS 163.547 — to prohibit persons from allowing children under 16 to be around certain illegal activities involving controlled substances.”
State v. McBride, 281 P.3d 605 (Or. 2012).
“]” ORS 163.547(l)(a). The conduct proscribed by that statute— allowing a child to stay in the immediate proximity of illegal drug activity — would render paragraph (b) of ORS 163.”
State v. Capell, 966 P.2d 232 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “" [15] Among other responsibilities, a parent has the duty to prevent exposure of a minor child to controlled substances, ORS 163.547, and to prevent a child under the age of 15 from committing an act that would bring the child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, ORS…”
State v. Binner, 877 P.2d 642 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“ORS 163.547. The state appeals from a pretrial order that suppressed evidence seized during the warrant search of Loretta’s house and evidence seized during an ensuing search of a trailer, which was conducted pursuant to her consent.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.547(1) — 3 cases
State v. Reiland, 958 P.2d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“ORS 163.547(1). 2 We review the trial court’s decision as a matter of law, State v.”
State v. Porter, 249 P.3d 139 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“575, or “on premises,” ORS 163.547, where the offense occurred. ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.547(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. MacK, 183 P.3d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for child neglect in the first degree *192 under ORS 163.547(1)(a) (2001), amended by Or. Laws 2005, ch.”
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“For the reasons below, we reverse and remand on defendant’s convictions for first-degree child neglect, ORS 163.547, reverse the conviction for possession of LSD, ORS 475.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.547(1)(a)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.547(1)(a)(B) — 2 cases
State v. MacK, 183 P.3d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for child neglect in the first degree *192 under ORS 163.547(1)(a) (2001), amended by Or. Laws 2005, ch.”
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“For the reasons below, we reverse and remand on defendant’s convictions for first-degree child neglect, ORS 163.547, reverse the conviction for possession of LSD, ORS 475.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.547(l)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“For the reasons below, we reverse and remand on defendant’s convictions for first-degree child neglect, ORS 163.547, reverse the conviction for possession of LSD, ORS 475.”
State v. MacK, 183 P.3d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for child neglect in the first degree *192 under ORS 163.547(1)(a) (2001), amended by Or. Laws 2005, ch.”
State v. Makin, 381 P.3d 799 (Or. 2016).
“We accordingly hold that first-degree child neglect, as defined in ORS 163.547, does not include knowingly leaving or allowing a child under 16 years of age to stay in a vehicle where controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them.”
State v. McBride, 281 P.3d 605 (Or. 2012).
“]” ORS 163.547(l)(a). The conduct proscribed by that statute— allowing a child to stay in the immediate proximity of illegal drug activity — would render paragraph (b) of ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.547(l)(a)(A) — 1 case
State v. Makin, 381 P.3d 799 (Or. 2016).
“We accordingly hold that first-degree child neglect, as defined in ORS 163.547, does not include knowingly leaving or allowing a child under 16 years of age to stay in a vehicle where controlled substances are possessed with an intent to deliver them.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.547(l)(a)(B) — 2 cases
State v. MacK, 183 P.3d 191 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for child neglect in the first degree *192 under ORS 163.547(1)(a) (2001), amended by Or. Laws 2005, ch.”
State v. Sparks, 340 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“For the reasons below, we reverse and remand on defendant’s convictions for first-degree child neglect, ORS 163.547, reverse the conviction for possession of LSD, ORS 475.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.