Summary
reversing conviction for endangering welfare of a minor where evidence was legally insufficient to prove that a principal or substantial use of the defendant's home was to facilitate unlawful drug activity
Summary of this case from State v. HobbsOpinion
A162639
02-22-2018
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Carolina Cristina MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Stacy M. Du Clos, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Stacy M. Du Clos, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
PER CURIAMDefendant appeals a judgment of conviction on one count of endangering the welfare of a minor, ORS 163.575 (1)(b) (making it a crime to knowingly permit a child "to enter or remain in a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances" is maintained or conducted). She argues that the trial court should have granted her motion for a judgment of acquittal on that count, because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that a principal or substantial use of her home—the place where she knowingly permitted children to enter and remain—was to facilitate unlawful drug activity. See State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela , 358 Or. 451, 473, 365 P.3d 116 (2015) (holding that "the phrase ‘a place where unlawful activity involving controlled substances is maintained or conducted,’ ORS 163.575(1)(b), refers to a place where a principal or substantial use of the place is to facilitate unlawful drug activity," and describing factors relevant to that determination).
The state concedes that, in light of Gonzalez-Valenzuela , the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the conviction. We agree, accept the concession of error, and reverse the conviction.
Defendant was acquitted of a second count of endangering the welfare of a minor, and the judgment also disposes of that count. We do not disturb that part of the judgment.
--------
Conviction for endangering the welfare of a minor reversed; otherwise affirmed.