Criminal Law: Under ORS 163.575(1)(b), the state must prove that the defendant engaged in affirmative conduct which authorized or made it possible for minors to be present during the course of illegal drug activity.

Defendant appealed his jury conviction and the Court of Appeals decision upholding his conviction on charges of child endangerment under ORS 163.575(1)(b). Defendant lived in his friend home, along with his friend's teenage daughter and her teenage friend. Defendant helped his friend grow marijuana and smoked marijuana with him and the two teenage girls. Defendant was convicted of child endangerment under ORS 165.575(1)(b). On appeal, the Defendant argued that the statute prohibits permitting someone under 18 years of age from entering or remaining in a place where unlawful activity is occurring, and that because he did not have the authority to exclude the teenagers, he did not have any authority to permit the teenagers to be there. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the statute's goal was prohibiting acts directed at minors and acts which permitted a minor to be present during illegal drug activity, not the drug activity itself. Therefore to prove a violation of ORS 163.575(1)(b), the state must prove that Defendant engaged in affirmative conduct which authorized or made it possible for minors to be present where illegal drug activity was occurring. Judgment of circuit court reversed and affirmed in part. Remanded to the circuit court.