Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SANDRA ROSE DAVE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2008-01-23
Citations: 217 Or. App. 509
Docket Number: CF040734; A132102
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SANDRA ROSE DAVE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 217
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 20,2007,
reversed and remanded January 23, 2008
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SANDRA ROSE DAVE, Defendant-Appellant.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
CF040734; A132102
176 P3d 424
Ernest G. Lannet argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jamesa J. Drake, Deputy Public Defender, Legal Services Division, Office of Public Defense Services.
Paul L. Smith argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Anna M. Joyce, Assistant Attorney General.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a Schedule II controlled substance. Former ORS 475.992 (2003), renumbered as ORS 475.840 (2005). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion in limine to exclude a crime laboratory report on the ground that ORS 475.235 unconstitutionally shifted the burden of production to defendant. The state concedes that, under State v. Birchfield, 342 Or 624, 157 P3d 216 (2007), the trial court erred in admitting the report, but argues that the error was harmless. On the record before us, we agree with the state's concession. However, we disagree that the error was harmless, inasmuch as a central issue at trial was whether the state proved that the substance found in defendant's possession was a controlled substance.
Reversed and remanded.