## Facts

- Thomas Patrick Fries helped his friend Albritton, a medical-marijuana cardholder, move belongings from an apartment after an eviction.
- In a back bedroom, Albritton identified marijuana plants and told Fries that was what he needed help moving.
- Fries physically picked up and carried three or four marijuana plants from the apartment to his Jeep, loaded them, and drove with Albritton toward a new residence.
- After a police officer followed the Jeep and approached them in a driveway, Fries stated they did not want to be stopped and questioned about the marijuana.
- Fries was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance (marijuana).
- At trial, Fries moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing he did not “possess” the marijuana because he was merely transporting it at Albritton’s direction; the motion was denied, and he was convicted.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court allowed review to resolve what “possession” requires under Oregon statutes.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that a defendant physically carries and transports another person’s marijuana plants, at the owner’s direction and without ownership, is sufficient for a jury to find “possession” under Oregon law.
2. Whether “actual possession” under ORS 161.015(9) requires ownership or excludes persons acting as a helper, agent, or bailee.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Fries knowingly actually possessed the marijuana.
- The court concluded that physical handling and transportation constituted “physical possession” within ORS 161.015(9), regardless of ownership or Albritton’s direction.
- The court rejected Fries’s argument that an implied agent/carrier limitation should be read into the general definition of possession.
- Applying the sufficiency standard and viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the court held the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- Under ORS 161.015(9), “possess” means “to have physical possession or otherwise dominion or control over the property”; actual possession is satisfied by physical control.
- Ownership is not a required element of actual possession; more than one person may possess the same controlled substance at the same time.
- Acting at another person’s direction does not negate actual possession when the defendant knowingly exercises physical control over the controlled substance.
- Courts should not infer broad carrier/agent exceptions into the general possession definition where the legislature has addressed carrier/agent treatment in a separate, specific statute.
- On review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the question is whether a rational factfinder could find the elements proved when evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the state.

## Conclusion

The court held that knowingly carrying and transporting another person’s marijuana plants constitutes actual possession under Oregon’s statutory definition, even if the defendant lacks ownership and acts at the owner’s direction, and it affirmed the conviction as supported by sufficient evidence.


State v. Fries, 344 Or. 541, 185 P.3d 453 (Or. 2008)