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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 475C.369 (2026)

Administration to another person under 18 years of age

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      475C.369 Administration to another person under 18 years of age. (1) Except as authorized under ORS 475C.005 to 475C.525, 475C.540 to 475C.586, 475C.600 to 475C.648 and 475C.770 to 475C.919 and rules adopted under ORS 475C.005 to 475C.525, 475C.540 to 475C.586, 475C.600 to 475C.648 and 475C.770 to 475C.919, it is unlawful for a person to intentionally administer a marijuana item to the body of another person who is under 18 years of age by inhalation, ingestion or any other means.

      (2) Intentionally administering a marijuana item to the body of a person who is under 18 years of age is a Class A felony.

      (3) A violation of this section shall be classified as a person felony and crime category 9 of the sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.

      (4) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of intentionally administering a marijuana item to the body of a person who is under 18 years of age if:

      (a) The person administering the marijuana item was less than three years older than the other person at the time of the administration, and the other person consented to the administration; or

      (b) The marijuana item was administered for a medical purpose with the consent of the person under 18 years of age, and the person under 18 years of age was a registry identification cardholder as defined in ORS 475C.777 at the time of the administration. [Formerly 475B.371]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: State v. Giurculete, 346 Or. App. 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Giurculete, 346 Or. App. 298 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “371 (2017), renumbered as ORS 475C.369 (2021).1 In five assign- ments of error, he seeks reversal of his convictions because, in his view, the trial court erred by (1) denying his request for a mistrial during voir dire; (2) denying a motion for a mis- trial after a psychologist…”
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.