Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.906 (2026)

Penalties for unlawful delivery to minors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      475.906 Penalties for unlawful delivery to minors. Except as authorized by ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.752 to 475.980, it is unlawful for any person to deliver a controlled substance to a person under 18 years of age. Any person who violates this section with respect to:

      (1) A controlled substance in Schedule I or II, is guilty of a Class A felony.

      (2) A controlled substance in Schedule III, is guilty of a Class B felony.

      (3) A controlled substance in Schedule IV, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

      (4) A controlled substance in Schedule V, is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. [Formerly 475.995]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: State v. Oldham, 455 P.3d 975 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Oldham, 455 P.3d 975 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered upon his pleas of guilty to unlawful delivery of a Schedule I controlled substance to a minor, ORS 475.906 (Count 1), and application of a Schedule I controlled substance to the body of another person under the age of 18, ORS…”
State v. Chatelain, 220 P.3d 41 (Or. 2009). “215(1) (a person commits second-degree burglary if the person “enters or remains in a building with intent to commit a crime therein”); ORS 475.906 (“[I]t is unlawful for any person to deliver a controlled substance to a person under 18 years of age.”
State v. Phillips, 135 P.3d 461 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “995 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.906 (2005); one count of attempted delivery of a controlled substance to a minor, ORS 161.”
Wyatt v. Czerniak, 195 P.3d 912 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “In July 1996, petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial, of three counts of first-degree rape, ORS 163.”
State v. Decleve, 450 P.3d 999 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the “200 percent” rule from OAR 213-012-0020(2)(b) after it applied the “shift- to-I” rule from OAR 213-012-0020(2)(a)(B).”
State v. Gonzales, 250 P.3d 418 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “995 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.906 (2005); and three counts of furnishing alcohol to a minor, ORS 471.”
State v. McBride, 281 P.3d 605 (Or. 2012). “856), delivering a controlled substance to a minor (ORS 475.906), and two counts of endangering the welfare of a minor.”
State v. Pauley, 156 P.3d 128 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “995 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.906 (2005). Specifically, Count 3 of the indictment alleged that defendant committed attempted sexual abuse in the first degree: “[DJefendant on or about the 8th day of August, 2002, in the County of Clackamas, State of Oregon, by means of…”
State v. Farokhrany, 312 P.3d 584 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Defendant appeals his convictions for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance to a minor, ORS 475.906; unlawful possession of cocaine, ORS 475.”
State v. Hylton, 501 P.3d 1081 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “385; three counts of delivery of a controlled substance to a minor (Counts 9, 10, and 11), ORS 475.906; and one count of endangering the welfare of a minor (Count 12), ORS 163.”
State v. Savage, 144 P.3d 1063 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “995 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.906 (2005), contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements that he made to officers before they advised him of his Miranda rights.”
State v. Jimenez-Correo, 273 P.3d 232 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “995 (2001), renumbered as ORS 475.906 (2005). 1 On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instruction providing that the state was required to prove that defendant had knowledge that the persons to whom he had delivered marijuana…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.