Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. James Jonathan ELLIS, Defendant–Appellant.
Defendant, an Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) cardholder, was acquitted of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) and sought the return of hashish that had been seized from him when he was arrested for DUII. The trial court entered an order denying defendant's motion to return his hashish, and defendant appeals the court's order. Defendant contends that hashish constitutes “usable marijuana” and, therefore, that it must be returned upon a determination that defendant lawfully possessed it under the OMMA. See ORS 475.323(2).1 The state concedes that hashish is usable marijuana under the OMMA and, therefore, that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion. We agree.
The OMMA adopts the definition of marijuana contained in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act (CSA). ORS 475.302(6). In turn, the CSA defines marijuana to include “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its resin.” ORS 475.005(16)(a) (emphasis added). We have held that hashish is marijuana under that definition. State v. Ness, 54 Or.App. 530, 538, 635 P.2d 1025 (1981), affd, 294 Or 8, 653 P.2d 548 (1982). Similarly, “usable marijuana” under the OMMA is defined to include “any mixture or preparation ” of the plant that is appropriate for medical use. ORS 475.302(11) (emphasis added). The state concedes that hashish falls within that definition, and the record supports the state's concession. Accordingly, we conclude that the court erred in denying defendant's motion for the return of the seized hashish.
Reversed and remanded.
FOOTNOTES
1. ORS 475.323(2) provides, as relevant:“Usable marijuana * * * that was seized by any law enforcement office shall be returned immediately upon a determination by the district attorney in whose county the property was seized, or the district attorney's designee, that the person from whom the marijuana * * * was seized is entitled to the protections contained in [the OMMA]. The determination may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges or acquittal.”
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: D103150T; A150077.
Decided: December 18, 2013
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)