475.752
Prohibited acts generally; penalties; exceptions; affirmative defense for certain
peyote uses; causing death by Schedule IV substance. (1) Except as authorized by ORS
475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980, it is unlawful for any person to
manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. Any person who violates this
subsection with respect to:
(a) A controlled
substance in Schedule I, is guilty of a Class A felony, except as otherwise
provided in ORS 475.886 and 475.890.
(b) A controlled
substance in Schedule II, is guilty of a Class B felony, except as otherwise
provided in ORS 475.788, 475.790, 475.792, 475.878, 475.880, 475.882, 475.904
and 475.906.
(c) A controlled
substance in Schedule III, is guilty of a Class C felony, except as otherwise
provided in ORS 475.904 and 475.906.
(d) A controlled
substance in Schedule IV, is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) A controlled
substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.
(2) Except as
authorized in ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980, it is unlawful for
any person to create or deliver a counterfeit substance. Any person who
violates this subsection with respect to:
(a) A counterfeit
substance in Schedule I, is guilty of a Class A felony.
(b) A counterfeit
substance in Schedule II, is guilty of a Class B felony.
(c) A counterfeit
substance in Schedule III, is guilty of a Class C felony.
(d) A counterfeit
substance in Schedule IV, is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) A counterfeit
substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.
(3) It is
unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally 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 475.752 to 475.980. Any person who violates this subsection with
respect to:
(a) A controlled
substance in Schedule I, is guilty of a drug enforcement misdemeanor punishable
as described in ORS 475.896, except as otherwise provided in ORS 475.854,
475.874 and 475.894 and subsection (7) of this section.
(b) A controlled
substance in Schedule II, is guilty of a drug enforcement misdemeanor
punishable as described in ORS 475.896, except as otherwise provided in ORS
475.794, 475.814, 475.824, 475.834 or 475.884 or subsection (8) of this
section.
(c) A controlled
substance in Schedule III, is guilty of a drug enforcement misdemeanor
punishable as described in ORS 475.896.
(d) A controlled
substance in Schedule IV, is guilty of a drug enforcement misdemeanor
punishable as described in ORS 475.896.
(e) A controlled
substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a violation.
(4) It is an
affirmative defense in any prosecution under this section for manufacture,
possession or delivery of the plant of the genus Lophophora commonly known as
peyote that the peyote is being used or is intended for use:
(a) In connection
with the good faith practice of a religious belief;
(b) As directly
associated with a religious practice; and
(c) In a manner
that is not dangerous to the health of the user or others who are in the
proximity of the user.
(5) The
affirmative defense created in subsection (4) of this section is not available
to any person who has possessed or delivered the peyote while incarcerated in a
correctional facility in this state.
(6)(a)
Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a person who unlawfully
manufactures or delivers a controlled substance in Schedule IV and who thereby
causes death to another person is guilty of a Class C felony.
(b) For purposes
of this subsection, causation is established when the controlled substance
plays a substantial role in the death of the other person.
(7)
Notwithstanding subsection (3)(a) of this section:
(a) Unlawful
possession of a controlled substance in Schedule I is a Class A misdemeanor if
the person possesses:
(A) Forty or more
user units of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic
acid diethylamide; or
(B) Twelve grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of psilocybin
or psilocin.
(b) Unlawful
possession of a controlled substance in Schedule I is a Class B felony if:
(A) The
possession is a commercial drug offense under ORS 475.900 (1)(b); or
(B) The person
possesses a substantial quantity under ORS 475.900 (3)(b).
(8)
Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b) of this section, unlawful possession of a
controlled substance in Schedule II is a Class C felony if:
(a) The
possession is a commercial drug offense under ORS 475.900 (1)(b); or
(b) The person
possesses a substantial quantity under ORS 475.900 (3)(b). [Formerly 475.840;
2013 c.591 §3; 2015 c.1 §76; 2015 c.614 §124; 2016 c.24 §59; 2017 c.21 §26;
2017 c.706 §9; 2021 c.2 §11; 2021 c.591 §32; 2023 c.413 §1; 2024 c.70 §§28,39;
2025 c.532 §7]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
54
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case:
State v. Hubbell, 537 P.3d 503 (Or. 2023).
State v. Hubbell, 537 P.3d 503 (Or. 2023).
· cites it 18× “” In this case, we consider whether that phrase applies to a per- son who possesses a large quantity of a controlled substance and takes steps consistent with an intent to transfer it in the future, but who has not yet made any effort to cause the substance to change possession.”
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 5× “The effect of Boyd was to create a completed delivery crime on a theory that the legislature did not con- template and, in fact, appears to have consciously omitted from the completed crime of delivery: possession with intent 4 It is also worth noting that ORS 475.752(1) makes…”
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017).
· cites it 2× “ORS 475.752(3). Perhaps the majority of refusals to obey a lawful order of a peace office are in fact passive, but it also is not difficult to conceive of scenarios in which a person actively, physically, refuses to obey.”
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 365 P.3d 116 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “894, ORS 475.752(3) — the law required defendant to dispose or otherwise divest herself of drugs that she possessed unlawfully.”
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “285 and ORS 475.752 to 475.980). Defendant contends that, although “ORS 475.”
Pohlman v. Cain, 493 P.3d 1095 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “411 (Count 1); two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.752 (Counts 4 and 9); attempted first-degree rape, ORS 163.”
State v. Blair, 396 P.3d 908 (Or. 2017).
“Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, ORS 475.752(3)(a). Before trial, he moved to suppress evidence of the mushrooms on the ground that their discovery was the product of an unconstitutional search under Article I, section 9.”
State v. Soprych, 507 P.3d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“894(2)(a) and one count of possession of a controlled sub- stance in schedule IV, ORS 475.752(3)(d), raising two argu- ments, divided into four assignments of error.”
State v. Akerman, 380 P.3d 309 (Tillamook Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“, Following a guilty plea, defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.752(3), and the state dismissed a charge of burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Chambers, 404 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Defendant appeals her convictions for unlawful possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, ORS 475.752 (3)(b), and unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.”
State v. Shevyakov, 489 P.3d 580 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“854 (Count 2); and unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.752 (Count 3). He assigns error to the trial court’s denials of his motions (1) to suppress evidence of his physical performance on the field sobriety tests (FSTs) and related derivate evi- dence; (2) in…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(1) — 2 cases
State v. Hubbell, 537 P.3d 503 (Or. 2023).
“” In this case, we consider whether that phrase applies to a per- son who possesses a large quantity of a controlled substance and takes steps consistent with an intent to transfer it in the future, but who has not yet made any effort to cause the substance to change possession.”
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The effect of Boyd was to create a completed delivery crime on a theory that the legislature did not con- template and, in fact, appears to have consciously omitted from the completed crime of delivery: possession with intent 4 It is also worth noting that ORS 475.752(1) makes…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(1)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The effect of Boyd was to create a completed delivery crime on a theory that the legislature did not con- template and, in fact, appears to have consciously omitted from the completed crime of delivery: possession with intent 4 It is also worth noting that ORS 475.752(1) makes…”
State v. Hubbell, 537 P.3d 503 (Or. 2023).
“” In this case, we consider whether that phrase applies to a per- son who possesses a large quantity of a controlled substance and takes steps consistent with an intent to transfer it in the future, but who has not yet made any effort to cause the substance to change possession.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The effect of Boyd was to create a completed delivery crime on a theory that the legislature did not con- template and, in fact, appears to have consciously omitted from the completed crime of delivery: possession with intent 4 It is also worth noting that ORS 475.752(1) makes…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(3) — 10 cases
State v. McNally, 392 P.3d 721 (Or. 2017).
“ORS 475.752(3). Perhaps the majority of refusals to obey a lawful order of a peace office are in fact passive, but it also is not difficult to conceive of scenarios in which a person actively, physically, refuses to obey.”
State v. Hubbell, 537 P.3d 503 (Or. 2023).
“” In this case, we consider whether that phrase applies to a per- son who possesses a large quantity of a controlled substance and takes steps consistent with an intent to transfer it in the future, but who has not yet made any effort to cause the substance to change possession.”
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 365 P.3d 116 (Or. 2015).
“894, ORS 475.752(3) — the law required defendant to dispose or otherwise divest herself of drugs that she possessed unlawfully.”
State v. Akerman, 380 P.3d 309 (Tillamook Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“, Following a guilty plea, defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.752(3), and the state dismissed a charge of burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.”
State v. Heaston, 482 P.3d 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“285 and ORS 475.752 to 475.980). Defendant contends that, although “ORS 475.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(3)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Blair, 396 P.3d 908 (Or. 2017).
“Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, ORS 475.752(3)(a). Before trial, he moved to suppress evidence of the mushrooms on the ground that their discovery was the product of an unconstitutional search under Article I, section 9.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(3)(b) — 11 cases
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The effect of Boyd was to create a completed delivery crime on a theory that the legislature did not con- template and, in fact, appears to have consciously omitted from the completed crime of delivery: possession with intent 4 It is also worth noting that ORS 475.752(1) makes…”
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 365 P.3d 116 (Or. 2015).
“894, ORS 475.752(3) — the law required defendant to dispose or otherwise divest herself of drugs that she possessed unlawfully.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(3)(b)(8)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(3)(c) — 2 cases
Pohlman v. Cain, 493 P.3d 1095 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“411 (Count 1); two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.752 (Counts 4 and 9); attempted first-degree rape, ORS 163.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(3)(c)(d) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(3)(d) — 1 case
State v. Soprych, 507 P.3d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“894(2)(a) and one count of possession of a controlled sub- stance in schedule IV, ORS 475.752(3)(d), raising two argu- ments, divided into four assignments of error.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(7) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(8)(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.752(l)(c) — 1 case
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.