to defendant’s position, the statute extends to a person, such as defendant, who has been given authority over a minor or premises and who accepts that authority knowing that it involves allowing a minor to be in a place where unlawful drug activity is occurring.” McBride, 242 Or App at 601. The Court of Appeals’ interpretation was based on the legislature’s intent that the child-endangerment statute “‘cover everything’” not prohibited elsewhere in the code that had been criminalized by the former statute defining the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which this court had determined to be unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 600 (quoting Minutes, Criminal Law Revision Commission, Subcommittee No 2, Mar 6, 1970, at 10); see State v. Hodges, 254 Or 21, 457 P2d 491 (1969) (<HOLDING>). The legislature intended the
holding a crime committed under a nebraska statute criminalizing sexual contact between an adult and a minor a felony crime of violence for sentencing purposes holding the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under age eighteen at the time of the crime holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement holding unconstitutional the statute defining the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries