Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEITH ALAN HOLLIS, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1972-10-19
Citations: 11 Or. App. 169
Docket Number: No. 72-0320
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEITH ALAN HOLLIS, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 11
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
Argued September 21,
affirmed October 19, 1972
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEITH ALAN HOLLIS, Appellant.
(No. 72-0320)
502 P2d 270
Stephen A. Hutchinson, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Combs, Hutchinson, Harrell & Cox, Eugene.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of Criminal Activity in Drugs, ORS 167.207(1), i.e., possession of marihuana, contending: (1) it is not a crime to possess marihuana under the new criminal code; and (2) there was insufficient evidence that he had knowledge that the substance possessed was marihuana.
The first contention has been resolved adversely to defendant's position in State v. Simpson, 11 Or App 271, 501 P2d 1311 (1972), Sup Ct review denied (1973).
The second contention is answered by ORS 167.238 (1), which provides:
"Proof of unlawful manufacture, cultivation, transportation or possession of a narcotic or dangerous drug is prima facie evidence of knowledge of its character."
Affirmed.