Background
Andrew Cahleb Morris was convicted in Multnomah County Circuit Court on one count of unlawful possession of a firearm under ORS 166.250(1)(b), which prohibits knowingly possessing a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible within a vehicle. The charge arose from a traffic stop during which an officer scanning the vehicle’s interior from the passenger side noticed the handle of a handgun tucked between the center console and the passenger seat.
At trial, Morris moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA), arguing the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the handgun was “concealed” as the statute requires. He contended the firearm was visible through the open passenger window and was immediately recognizable as a handgun — a 9mm Glock, as one officer identified it — and therefore its placement did not fail to provide reasonable notice of its presence through ordinary observation. The trial court denied the motion, and Morris appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a nonprecedential per curiam opinion. Applying the standard from State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47 (1994), the court examined the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and asked whether a rational trier of fact could have found the concealment element proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court answered yes.
Relying on the Oregon Supreme Court’s definition in State v. Harrison, 365 Or 584 (2019) — that a handgun is “concealed” if its placement would fail to give reasonable notice of its presence through ordinary observation to a person coming into contact with the vehicle’s occupants — the court found the record sufficient. The firearm was not visible to an officer approaching from the driver’s side; a second officer on the passenger side who spoke with Morris initially did not notice it; and the third officer who ultimately spotted it did so only after deliberately scanning the interior, having first been focused on Morris’s hands. That combination of circumstances supported a rational factfinder’s conclusion that the gun was concealed.
Key Takeaways
- Under ORS 166.250(1)(b), whether a handgun in a vehicle is “concealed” is a question of fact for the factfinder, not a purely legal question resolved at the MJOA stage.
- A firearm need not be fully hidden to be legally “concealed” — it is sufficient that its placement would fail to give reasonable notice of its presence through ordinary observation, even if an officer can eventually identify it once deliberately scanning the interior.
- The fact that a gun is identifiable as a specific model once seen does not preclude a finding of concealment if multiple officers failed to notice it without actively looking.
- The court cited State v. Delgado-Rodriguez, 348 Or App 616 (2026), as analogous, where a handgun tucked into a truck bench seat cushion with only the top visible was also found concealed despite officer identification from the window.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Oregon’s concealment inquiry under ORS 166.250(1)(b) is highly fact-specific and favorable to the prosecution at the MJOA stage. Defendants cannot defeat a concealment charge simply by showing that an officer eventually spotted the weapon or could identify its make and model — what matters is whether the gun’s placement would have given reasonable notice to an ordinary person in typical contact with the vehicle.
Although nonprecedential under ORAP 10.30, the opinion is consistent with the trajectory of Oregon appellate decisions applying Harrison, and practitioners should note that partial visibility of a firearm — a handle tucked between a seat and console, or a grip poking out of upholstery — is unlikely to defeat a concealment charge as a matter of law.