An Oregon appeals panel has tossed a Linn County man’s gun conviction, ruling that prosecutors did not prove he “constructively possessed” a hunting rifle that he arranged to have sold. The Wednesday decision wipes out a 15-month prison sentence and two years of post-prison supervision stemming from his 2023 unlawful-possession conviction. The split ruling centers on a narrow question with big implications: Is it enough, under Oregon law, to ask a relative to pawn a gun without ever touching it yourself to show the kind of custody or control the statute requires?
What the appeals court said
The three-judge panel reversed the conviction after concluding the state’s evidence did not establish that the defendant actually exercised custody or dominion over the rifle. In the written opinion, Judge Jacqueline Kamins put it bluntly, writing that “it is not clear that defendant exercised any custody or control over the rifle,” according to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
How the sale unfolded
According to prosecutors, 49-year-old Chet Thomas Hamilton asked his cousin to take the rifle to a pawnshop, then stood by and watched as the cousin completed the deal. Hamilton never physically handed the gun over, but he did answer “yep” when the pawnbroker asked if he was “good to go.” Those details, along with the fact that a Linn County judge sentenced Hamilton after his 2023 conviction, are laid out in reporting by the Portland Tribune.
Prosecutors' theory and the dissent
The state’s theory was that Hamilton effectively controlled the rifle by directing the transfer, arranging the sale and treating the gun as if it were his property. Prosecutors also argued that because he could have walked out of the shop with the rifle if the deal had fallen through, a jury could infer he had the necessary control.
Judge Douglas Tookey, writing in partial dissent, agreed with that view, saying those facts supported an inference of dominion and control, as the opinion explains. The court record and the judges’ separate writings are reflected in the Court of Appeals’ published opinions.
What the law requires
Oregon law bars certain people from possessing firearms, and it allows convictions based on “constructive possession,” which looks to whether a defendant had dominion over, and immediate access to, a weapon. The contours of that test come from the statute and recent appellate decisions interpreting it, per ORS 166.250. Legal analysis has noted that courts often scrutinize whether an otherwise lawful transfer crosses the line into the sort of custody or control the law criminalizes, according to Willamette Law Online.
What happens next
Jenny Hansson, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice, said the agency is reviewing the opinion and weighing its options, according to the Portland Tribune. The ruling could narrow how prosecutors build unlawful-possession cases across the state. Oregon may seek further review, but for now the conviction is off the books and the case has been remanded in line with the panel’s decision.
