167.238 Prima
facie evidence permitted in prosecutions of drug offenses. (1) Proof of unlawful manufacture,
cultivation, transportation or possession of a controlled substance is prima
facie evidence of knowledge of its character.
(2) Proof of
possession of a controlled substance not in the container in which it was
originally delivered, sold or dispensed, when a prescription or order of a
practitioner is required under the provisions of ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and
475.752 to 475.980, is prima facie evidence that the possession is unlawful
unless the possessor also has in possession a label prepared by the pharmacist
for the drug dispensed or the possessor is authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285
and 475.752 to 475.980 to possess the controlled substance. [1971 c.743 §279;
1977 c.745 §36; 1995 c.440 §17]
167.240 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
167.242 [1971 c.743 §280; 1977 c.745 §37;
1995 c.440 §18; repealed by 1997 c.592 §6 (167.243 enacted in lieu of 167.242)]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1972–2020 · leading case:
State v. Rainey, 693 P.2d 635 (Or. 1985).
State v. Rainey, 693 P.2d 635 (Or. 1985).
· cites it 4× “One such statute, ORS 167.238(1), provides: "Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a controlled substance is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its character.”
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“” 298 Or at 462 -63 (citing ORS 167.238(1) (“Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a controlled substance is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its character.”
State v. Offord, 512 P.2d 1375 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 4× “ORS 167.238 (1) provides: “Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a narcotic or dangerous drug is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its character.”
State v. Beason, 12 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 167.238(1) creates this statutory presumption.”
State v. Engen, 993 P.2d 161 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
“12 Another reason that defendants may not have made that argument — at least between 1971 and 1977 — was ORS 167.238( 1). That statute, enacted as part of the 1971 code revisions, provides: *606 “Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a…”
State v. Dick, 754 P.2d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (ORS 167.238), felony driving while revoked (ORS 153.”
State v. Rainey, 653 P.2d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “In Offord , however, we also said that if ORS 167.238 “* * * merely states a rule that the jury may infer guilty knowledge from the fact of possession, the statute is valid because there is a rational .”
State v. Short, 746 P.2d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“” The court instructed the jury, apparently pursuant to ORS 167.238(1), that proof of unlawful delivery is prima facie evidence of knowledge of the character of the delivered substance and that “prima facie evidence means evidence good and sufficient on its face, such evidence…”
State v. Hollis, 502 P.2d 270 (Or. Ct. App. 1972).
“The second contention is answered by ORS 167.238 (1), which provides: “Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a narcotic or dangerous drug is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its character.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.238(1) — 5 cases
State v. Rainey, 693 P.2d 635 (Or. 1985).
“One such statute, ORS 167.238(1), provides: "Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a controlled substance is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its character.”
State v. Mayo, 465 P.3d 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“” 298 Or at 462 -63 (citing ORS 167.238(1) (“Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a controlled substance is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its character.”
State v. Beason, 12 P.3d 560 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“ORS 167.238(1) creates this statutory presumption.”
State v. Short, 746 P.2d 742 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“” The court instructed the jury, apparently pursuant to ORS 167.238(1), that proof of unlawful delivery is prima facie evidence of knowledge of the character of the delivered substance and that “prima facie evidence means evidence good and sufficient on its face, such evidence…”
State v. Rainey, 653 P.2d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“In Offord , however, we also said that if ORS 167.238 “* * * merely states a rule that the jury may infer guilty knowledge from the fact of possession, the statute is valid because there is a rational .”
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.