164 Or. App. 591 - State v. Engen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[IJnsulating from criminal liability those defendants who knowingly deal in prohibited controlled substances, but are ignorant, mistaken, or willing to misrepresent the exact nature or chemical name of the substance which they traffic,- is contrary to public policy.... The requirement that a defendant “knowingly” distribute or possess a controlled substance adequately protects those'individuals who may innocently become involved in a drug transaction by inadvertence or accident. However, one who knowingly engages in the trade of controlled substances should not profit by feigning ignorance, and subsequently relying on the State’s potential inability to prove knowledge of the exact substance involved.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Perea

2. “"In this case the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of both the presence and the narcotic or illicit nature of the substance. The State does not need to prove that the defendant knew the specific identity of the substance."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 Or. App. 125 - State v. Harper

3. “the state is not required to prove a defendant's knowledge of the particular type of controlled substance possessed”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 296 Or. App. 125 - State v. Harper