State v. Durham, 245 OrApp 58 (2011)

Holding:   Diversion is not available for all types of criminal possession of marijuana.

1)   “To determine the intent of the legislature * * * we first examine the text of the statutes in context and then look to any helpful legislative history offered by the parties.” citing, State v. Gaines. at p. 61.

2)   A plain reading of the statute outlawing possession of marijuana shows that it defines three separate crimes. In turn, a plain reading of the marijuana diversion statute shows that diversion is only available to defendants violating the offense described in subsection 3. at p. 62.

3)   “Ordinarily, only statutes enacted simultaneously with or before a statute at issue are pertinent context for interpreting that statute.” cite omitted. at p. 63.

4)   Legislative history can be used to support the construction that results from a plain reading of the statute. at p. 64.

5)   A single comment by a member of a single committee that crafted the bill can be used to elucidate legislative intent. at p. 64.

Filed under: uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!