OUJI-CR 6-12

MAINTAINING A PLACE WHERE CONTROLLED DANGEROUS

SUBSTANCES ARE KEPT - ELEMENTS

No person may be convicted of maintaining a place where controlled dangerous substances are kept unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, knowingly or intentionally;

Second, keeping or maintaining;

Third, any store/shop/warehouse/(dwelling house)/building/vehicle/boat/ aircraft/place;

Fourth, (where persons using controlled dangerous substances in violation of the law often/customarily/generally go for the purpose of using such substances)/(used for the keeping or selling of controlled dangerous substances in violation of the law).

The phrase "keeping or maintaining" as used in this instruction requires the defendant to have control/ownership/management of the residence/structure/vehicle, as distinguished from other persons resorting to it to buy/use controlled dangerous substances in violation of the law.

A conviction of the crime of maintaining a place where controlled dangerous substances are kept requires that the activity giving rise to the charge must be more than a single, isolated activity. Rather, the term implies an element of some degree of habitualness.

A conviction of the crime of maintaining a place where controlled dangerous substances are kept requires that a substantial purpose, and not necessarily the sole purpose, of the residence/ structure/vehicle is for (the keeping or selling of controlled dangerous substances)/(the using of by persons resorting to the place for using controlled dangerous substances in violation of the law).

The mere possession of limited quantities of a controlled dangerous substance by the person keeping or maintaining the residence/structure/vehicle for that person's personal use within that residence/structure/vehicle is insufficient to support a conviction of the crime of maintaining a place where controlled dangerous substances are kept.

______________________________

Statutory Authority: 63 O.S. Supp. 2000, § 2-404(A)(6).

Committee Comments

In Meeks v. State, 1994 OK CR 20, ¶ 7, 872 P.2d 936, 939, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals directed trial courts to instruct the jury substantially as specified in this instruction. See also Howard v. State, 1991 OK CR 76, ¶ 9, 815 P.2d 679, 683 (requiring maintenance of the place to have been for the purpose of keeping, selling, or using drugs and also that there have been more than a single, isolated activity).

(2000 Supp.)