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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.967 (2026)

Possession of precursor substance with intent to manufacture controlled substance

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

      475.967 Possession of precursor substance with intent to manufacture controlled substance. (1) A person commits the crime of possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance if the person possesses one or more precursor substances with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance in violation of ORS 475.752 (1), 475.806, 475.808, 475.816, 475.818, 475.826, 475.828, 475.846, 475.848, 475.866, 475.868, 475.876, 475.878, 475.886 or 475.888.

      (2) Possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance is a Class B felony. [2001 c.615 §10; 2005 c.708 §58; 2011 c.524 §22]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 2005–2017 · leading case: State v. Heckathorne, 223 P.3d 1034 (Or. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Heckathorne, 223 P.3d 1034 (Or. 2009). · cites it 2× “Defendants were charged with and convicted of possession of a precursor substance — anhydrous ammonia, a chemical used in methamphetamine production — with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, ORS 475.967. The ammonia was contained in a metal cylinder that the police…”
State v. Moreno, 104 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture, ORS 475.967, assigning error to the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal.”
State v. Nyce, 2006 NMSC 026 (N.M. 2006). “3d 883, 889 (2005) (noting because ORS 475.967(1) makes it illegal to possess a precursor with intent to manufacture a drug, probable cause to believe manufacture is occurring can exist if purchase is coupled with intent).”
State v. Miller, 191 P.3d 651 (Or. 2008). “335 2 to one count of possessing a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, ORS 475.967, and two counts of manufacturing a controlled substance, former ORS 475.”
State v. Harper, 105 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “940(1), (3)(jj) (providing that iodine matrix is a “precursor substance”); ORS 475.967(1) (providing that possession of a “precursor substance” is unlawful if the person possessing it intends to manufacture a controlled substance).”
State v. Bretches, 202 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a precursor substance, ORS 475.967, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence.”
State v. Andrews, 204 P.3d 140 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “Defendant appeals convictions for possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, ORS 475.967, and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), former ORS 475.”
State v. Moller, 174 P.3d 1063 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, ORS 475.967, conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance, ORS 161.”
State v. Heckathorne, 179 P.3d 693 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Defendants appeal their convictions for possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, ORS 475.967, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of their motion to suppress evidence.”
State v. Corbett, 196 P.3d 573 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “992 (2003), possession of iodine matrix, ORS 475.967, and possession of a forged instrument, ORS 165.”
State v. Miller, 156 P.3d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Defendant appeals convictions for one count of possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, ORS 475.967, and two counts of manufacture of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.”
State v. Mandonado, 150 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 475.967. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge on statutory speedy trial grounds pursuant to ORS 135.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.967(1) — 4 cases
State v. Nyce, 2006 NMSC 026 (N.M. 2006). “3d 883, 889 (2005) (noting because ORS 475.967(1) makes it illegal to possess a precursor with intent to manufacture a drug, probable cause to believe manufacture is occurring can exist if purchase is coupled with intent).”
State v. Harper, 105 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “940(1), (3)(jj) (providing that iodine matrix is a “precursor substance”); ORS 475.967(1) (providing that possession of a “precursor substance” is unlawful if the person possessing it intends to manufacture a controlled substance).”
State v. Nyce, 2006 NMSC 26 (N.M. 2006).
State v. Brock, 295 P.3d 89 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.967(2) — 1 case
State v. Moreno, 104 P.3d 628 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a precursor substance with intent to manufacture, ORS 475.967, assigning error to the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal.”
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.