IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 1 i 2 : FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY ° z g THE STATE OF OREGON, ) p ) Case No. C 90-02-31186 B fn a Plaintiff, ) ose ) DA 414387 2 gee : vs. ) 5 Se ) - VERDICT = g BARRY JOB STULL, ) = ) 1 Defendant. ) e We the jury, duly empaneled and sworn to the above-entitled 9 cause, do find our verdicts upon the count(s) submitted to us as 3p follows: aa 4524 North Commercial 2 Count 1 - MANUFACTURE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, MARIJUANA 5 NOT GUILTY X_ curry a Count 2 - DELIVERY OF MARIJUANA FOR CONSIDERATION 5 X_ nor curry GUILTY é ‘ew Count 2 (lesser included charge) - DELIVERY OF LESS THAN ONE Bas OUNCE FOR NO CONSIDERATION Noy, Ss NOT GUILTY GUILTY », Ae “on — — ‘ Zs 40° coting. 2 (lesser included) - DELIVERY OF LESS THAN FIVE GRAMS iki wt > sd NO CONSIDERATION \ a <7 NOT GUILTY GUILTY gg “Count 3 ~ POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, MORE THAN 23 ONE OUNCE OF MARIJUANA ot _____ No? GUILTY xX GUILTY 6 N.E. Church I6 25 756 N.E. Churc! 060038 26 Count 4 - MANUFACTURE OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, MARIJUANA Page 2 ~ VERDICTNOT GUILTY X_ curry . Count 5 - DELIVERY OF MARIJUANA FOR CONSIDERATION 7 nor curury ___ curry : count 5 (lesser included charge) - DELIVERY OF LESS ‘THAN ONE a OUNCE FOR NO CONSIDERATION NOT GUILTY ___. GUILTY : Count 5 (lesser included) - DELIVERY OF LESS THAN FIVE GRAMS i. FOR NO CONSIDERATION : NOT GUILTY ____. GUILTY . Count 6 - POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, MORE THAN a ONE OUNCE OF MARIJUANA n _____ Nor GUILTY _X. comer 2 pateas__//- JE- 90 : Md Le, 14 PRESIDING JUROR 15 16 4 i “4 18 19 - A 21 22 23 a = 7 95 300039 Page 2 - VERDICTcos _ _ Fell D fu? CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF PAEGON SID | 744 Slo MULTNOMAH PORNTY STATE OF OREGON ORDER TRANSPORTING dul Brean Dee. A002 3 118lo DEFENDANT DY W43EPR THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT IS CONFINED IN THE FOLLOWING FACILITY: C OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY [1 OREGON STATE CORRECTION INSTITUTION. ; [ ] OREGON WOMEN'S CORRECTIONAL CENTER a2 { ] OREGON STATE HOSPITAL Ohs2 He S2 WH ES Wd eee COUNTY JAIL PURPOSE: -e I ] Cour? APPEARANCE vw 28 # ‘ t ar_13:4S au/2M on THE Q\ pay or C)UNE 993 AND ON ANY SUBSEQUENT DATES DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE MAY BE REQUIRED. WHERE: t A suserce center 4¢ 3 Heavinay- Motion fo Return t Property IT IS ORDERED THAT THE: (Mf apminrstaToR OF THE CORRECTIONS DIVISION. {| ] THE SHERIFF OF COUNTY. ] COUNTY COURTHOUSE,ROOM NUMBER {1 OTHER . DELIVER THE DEFENDANT TO THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY AND RETAIN THE DEFENDANT IN CUSTODY AT THE MULTNOMAH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF SAID PROCEEDINGS, AFTER WHICH THE DEFENDANT SHALL BE RETURNED. paren: 6-25- 4 be p S Ore. —— eC ‘bution: ORIG= Court GREEN & YELLOW= Sheri PINK= File GOLDENROD ~D.A. otticeom ew FY NY ~ 10 a 13 1 b 16 7 16] au) 23 25 8 Barry Joe Stull 2, % #TINLOSS Ny, “Uy Oregon State Penitentiary ty 2605 State Street NE Salem, OR 97310 EN THE GERCUTT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE GOUNTE OF MULTNOMNE STATS OF ORBGON, =~ Plaintiff, Gase No, 90-02-31186 vse MOTION FOR THE HETURN OF ‘THINGS SEIZED BARRY JOE STULL, } Defendant. ) COMES NOM the defendant, BARRY JOE STULL, and moves this court for an order euthoriaing the release of all property, seized from bim upon hia arrest on the subject charge, including, but, nob. Linited: to the fdllawingt Books, papers, horticultural supplies, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, photogrephs, kitchen scale, sclar meter, plastic cannabis plants, and one thousand. dollars UsS« currencys Totel. valuet $4800, See EIBIT Ay transcript of statenont of Deputy District Attorney, Tad Bverhart, 621M at sentencing hearing, Jamary 2ly, 1991, attached: herewiths The grounis for this motion is that agents of the plaintiff, Sheriff's Department, Portland Police Bureau, or the arresting ani boclcing personnel have failed to return said properties. In support of this mation are defeniant!s Points and Aubhorities ani Affidavit attached herewith. parep this 07S day of Mayy 1993+ Respectfully submitted by, _—toeeaeld — Bary JooStall, Defendant. (a Page 1 of 2 ~ MOTION FOR THE RETURN OF THINGS SEIZEDom a Aw Fe DN 10 a 12 13 15 16 Ww 19 20 22 2B 25 “Rory DAUR TES M for return or restoration of ss seiz 1) Bithin 90 days after actual notice of eny seizure, or at such later date as the court. in ite discretion may sllows a) An individual from whose person, property or premises things have been seized may move the appropriate court to return things seized to the person or premises from which they wore seized. 2) The appropriate court to consider such a motion iss a) The court having ultimate triel court jurisdiction over any crime charged. in connection with the seiaure; ORS 133e6/:33 Grounis for motion for return or restoration of thing seized: ‘A notion for the return or restoration of things seized shell be based on the grounds that the movant. Has a valid claim to rightful posession thereof, becauses 1) Although the things seized were subject to seiaure unier ORS 1334525 to 1336703, the movant. is or will be entitled to their return or restoration upon the court's determination that they are no Longer needed for evidentiary purposes; or 5) The parties in the case have stipulated that the things, seized may be returneds Bage. 2 of 2 — MOTION FOR THE RETURN OF THINGS SEIZED10 W 12 1B 14 15 16 7 1B 19 2 23 24 23 Sentencing -— 222 I discussed this with counsel, and I was hoping that maybe we can agree to some sort of figure on restitution. Restitution for a case like this is clearly provided -- I've given counsel State vs. Left-hand Bull HGS sowisio Wiotne we O31 that discusses restitution where manufacturing drugs causes damage to a building. Finally, Your Honor, it's my understanding that defendant will appeal this case, and there's a number of items that were seized by the police. There will have to be -- they will have to remain in our custody until the appeal is finished. However, there was a thousand dollars seized, and I would ask the Court to impose a thousand dollar fine and require the defendant to pay that. That could be paid out of the money seized by the police. This case happened before the State passed a forfeiture ordinance. The police seized about thirty-eight hundred @ollars' worth of growing accessories, lights, that sort of thing. I think the Court will have to eventually return that to the defendant if the defendant requests that property. However, I think that the defendant could be ordered to pay a fine, and after he sold that property, he would be able to afford a fine. Finally, there were -- and I've discussed this with counsel. We introduced the fingerprint card from the EXHIBIT A- TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENT OF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY ‘TAD EVERHART, 8421h_ AT SENTENCING HBARING, JANUARY 2s, 1991» OrAMAUre Bo 23 25 26 27 I, Barry Joe Stull, being fully sworn. depose and say the following: On July. 6, 1969 two search warranta were served by Officer Cheryl Arnold of the Portland Police Bureau at two buildings, one at 4524 North Commercial Avenue and the other at 756 Northeast Church Street, Both in Portland, Oregon: and in Multnomah Countys A mber of items were seized by the Portland Police Bureau that were not returned, and are no longer needed as evidence since the case went to trial and a verdict was reached on Novenber28, 1990, and the appeals process has: been exercised to the level of the Oregon Supreme Courts The items seized should be restored and retuned because they were awfully obtained and are no longer needed as evidences. There was no forfieture ordinaee in effect on the date the items were seizede ‘The ditioms: seized include the items 1istied on the police reports and receipts and mentioned by Deputy District Attorney, Ted Everhart ‘in: the abteched Exhibit A, In: addition, two plastic cannabis plants were removed from 1,52) North Commercial Avenue but vere not Listed on the police reports: or receipts. to “oe Signed, Barry oe =e DATED this 10th day of May, 1993. Signed and sworn before ma on this _/7 day of May, 199% t i f, Wotary Public for Oregons Midty lon My commission expires, Vel A +s Page 1 - AFFIDAVIT OF BARRY JOB STULL10 an 12 13 14 15 16 u7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 1 of 1 - ORDER TO RETURN PROPERTY 2b IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON z S FOR THE COUNTY OF _ seueaicy BE 2 STATE OF OREGON, } Re Rg] Plaintiff, } Case No. pop gangis86 2a vs. ! ORDER TO RETURN PROPERTY gS BARRYJOB_STULL_____ ) ) Defendant. ) THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the defendant's Motion for Return of Things Seized, and the Court finding that the property stated in defendant's motion and supported by Affidavit should be returned to the possession of the defendant, or his/her designee, and the Court being fully advised in the premises; Now, Therefore; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant's Motion is granted to the extent that the State of Oregon,p Police Buremy : c Sheriff's Department, or the afresting and booking personnel shall return any and’ p41 properties taken from or receipted to defendant that he has a rightful claim to in connection with this ca IT IS SO ORDERED this 19, MOTION PRESENTED BYy » Defendant