189 Or. App. 38 - State v. Pollock’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We conclude that offering to sell a controlled substance constitutes a substantial step toward a completed transfer of that substance. As the court explained in State v. Walters, 311 Or. 80 , 85, 804 P.2d 1164 , cert. den., 501 U.S. 1209 , 111 S.Ct. 2807 , 115 L.Ed.2d 979 (1991), “ ‘to be a substantial step the act must be “strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose,” ’ ... ie., [the] defendant’s conduct must (1) advance the criminal purpose charged and (2) provide some verification of the existence of that purpose.” (Citations omitted.) An offer to sell a controlled substance meets the two-part test the court identified in Walters. It “substantially advances” the goal of completing the transaction. See id. An offer to sell goes beyond mere preparation and shows a commitment to completing the transfer if the offer is accepted. Additionally, the offer “provided] some verification of the existence of [defendant’s criminal] purpose.” See id. Taking defendant at his word, he would have immediately transferred the ecstasy to Andersen and Carver if they had accepted his offer. At a minimum, the officer reasonably could conclude from defendant’s offer to sell a controlled substance that it was more likely than not that he had intentionally taken a substantial step toward the completed transfer of that substance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“actual, constructive or attempted transfer ... from one person to another of a controlled substance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.