State v. Brown
Decision Date | 29 September 1988 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Richard Edward BROWN, Petitioner on Review. TC 10-87-01282; CA A45416; SC S35186. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Shaun S. McCrea, McCrea, P.C., Eugene, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.
Brenda Peterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review.
The first issue is what a defendant must prove to establish the defense described in ORS 811.180(1)(a) to a charge of driving while suspended. The statute provides:
The second issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to require submission to the jury of defendant's affirmative defense under that statute. 1 We hold that the evidence here was sufficient to present a question for the jury.
The statutory text raises some questions. Must there be an actual injury or immediate threat thereof or only an appearance thereof? What is the meaning of "injury"? We shall address these questions as we proceed.
Defendant appeals his conviction for driving while suspended. He does not dispute that he was driving while his license was suspended; rather he seeks to raise the affirmative defense provided by ORS 811.180. 2
After defendant had rested, the state moved to withdraw the defense from the jury's consideration on grounds that the evidence was insufficient to allow the jury to consider the defense. During argument on the motion, the state cited State v. Haley, 64 Or.App. 209, 667 P.2d 560 (1983). In that case the court held that defendant must prove two things: that there was an immediate threat of injury to a person or an animal and that the urgency of the circumstances required the defendant to drive to avert or remedy the emergency. The court stated that "if either element of the defense lack[s] evidentiary support, the trial judge ha[s] the authority to withdraw the defense from the jury's consideration." 64 Or.App. at 213, 667 P.2d 560.
Though this trial court's statements are not completely clear, it appears that the court interpreted Haley to permit it to evaluate whether the evidence established the existence of the defense before submitting the case to the jury. The court told the parties, The court then told the jury:
The defendant was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction without issuing an opinion. State v. Brown, 90 Or.App. 445, 752 P.2d 1316 (1988). Defendant argued on appeal that a defense should be withdrawn from the jury's consideration only if the record contains no evidence on an essential element of the defense.
In civil cases, the jury must be permitted to consider every claim on which the plaintiff has presented some evidence tending to establish each element of that claim. See, e.g., Wagner v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 285 Or. 81, 84, 589 P.2d 1106 (1979), wherein the court stated:
See also Manning v. Helbock, 135 Or. 262, 266, 295 P. 207 (1931) (); Anderson v. Wallowa National Bank, 100 Or. 679, 700, 198 P. 560 (1921) (same); Woods v. Wikstrom, 67 Or. 581, 588-89, 135 P. 192 (1913) ( ). Only when there is no evidence to support an element may the claim be withdrawn from the jury's consideration. 3
The same rule obtains in criminal cases. 4 In Latshaw v. Territory of Oregon, 1 Or. 140, 142 (1855), the court wrote:
(Emphasis in original.)
iSee also State v. Newlin, 92 Or. 589, 594, 182 P. 133 (1919) ().
The rationale for this rule is twofold. First, Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution decrees that a fact decided by a jury may not be reexamined unless the reviewing court can affirmatively say that there is no evidence to support the jury's decision. A corollary to the provision is that if there is any evidence to support each element of a theory for which a party contends, the theory must be submitted for the jury's consideration, no matter whether the judge is persuaded. Wootten v. Dillard, 286 Or. 129, 136, 592 P.2d 1021 (1979); Shepler v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 279 Or. 477, 483-84, 569 P.2d 1040 (1977).
Even without the constitutional provision, the jury's role as the factfinder would dictate that it should be permitted to consider any theory for which the record contains some evidence, if there is a conflicting theory, or if the evidence itself is in conflict. That is because it is the jury's task, not the court's, to weigh evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of their testimony, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence. See, e.g., Shepler v. Weyerhaeuser Company, supra.
Though this case concerns evidence introduced in support of an affirmative defense, rather than a claim or a charge, the test is the same. By raising an affirmative defense, the defendant seeks to avoid criminal responsibility for acts that might otherwise constitute a crime. If the defense is established, the defendant is not guilty of a crime, even if he committed acts that otherwise would constitute a crime. But a defendant must prove certain facts to establish the defense, just as a plaintiff must establish as a factual matter the elements of a civil claim or the state must establish as a factual matter the elements of a criminal charge. 5
A defendant's task, therefore, in establishing an affirmative defense is the same as that facing a plaintiff on a civil claim: to introduce enough evidence, first, to get to the jury, and second, to meet the requisite burden of proof in the judgment of the jury. Because the task is the same, it is proper to use the same test to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to require that the defense be submitted to the jury. We hold that, as in civil cases, an affirmative defense to a criminal charge may be withdrawn from the jury's consideration only if there is no evidence in the record to support an element of the defense.
Before describing the evidence, we must decide whether the defendant must prove after the fact that an injury or an immediate threat of injury to a human being actually existed or whether one of them appeared to exist. The word "threat" implies something that has not yet actually happened and requires a driver who attempts to rescue someone from a "threat of injury" to make a judgment about the existence of that threat. Since it would often be a matter for speculation whether a threat of injury "actually" exists, the "actual" test is inconsistent with making the defense available to someone who drives to avert a threat of injury.
Furthermore, the "actual" test is inconsistent with the reason for the existence of the defense. Presumably the defense exists because the legislature recognized that there are circumstances in which it is preferable that a person drive to effect a rescue than to refrain from driving because of the suspension. 6 Requiring defendant to establish after the fact that an injury or threat of injury "actually" existed might dissuade a suspended driver from taking action to avert an emergency if the driver believes, but is uncertain, whether the injury or threat of injury exists. Given its reason for establishing the defense,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Fed. Teachers v. Oregon Taxpayers
...to establish each element of that claim.'" Bolt v. Influence, Inc., 333 Or. 572, 578, 43 P.3d 425 (2002) (quoting State v. Brown, 306 Or. 599, 602, 761 P.2d 1300 (1988) (emphasis in Brown)). As the court emphasized in Brown, "[o]nly when there is no evidence to support an element may the cl......
-
Honda Motor Co. Ltd, et al. v. Oberg
...1016 (1977) (judgment notwithstanding the verdict is to be granted when there is no evidence to support the verdict); State v. Brown, 306 Or 599, 761 P2d 1300 (1988) (a fact decided by a jury may be re-examined when a reviewing court can say affirmatively that there is no evidence to suppor......
-
Oberg v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
...1016 (1977) (judgment notwithstanding the verdict is to be granted when there is no evidence to support the verdict); State v. Brown, 306 Or. 599, 604, 761 P.2d 1300 (1988) (a fact decided by a jury may be re-examined when a reviewing court can say affirmatively that there is no evidence to......
-
Parrott v. Carr Chevrolet, Inc.
...there is no evidence to support the verdict." Id. at 95, 210 P.2d 461 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Brown, 306 Or. 599, 604, 761 P.2d 1300 (1988) (fact decided by jury may not be reexamined unless reviewing court can say affirmatively that there is no evidence to sup......