State v. Miller
Decision Date | 06 March 1990 |
Citation | 309 Or. 362,788 P.2d 974 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on review, v. Les Lee MILLER, Petitioner on review. DC 880117M; CA A48812; SC S36077. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Henry M. Silberblatt, Salem, for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, for respondent on review. With him on the response to the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before PETERSON, C.J., and LINDE, * CARSON, JONES, GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN and FADELEY, JJ.
The issue is whether a defendant may be convicted of violating ORS 813.010 without proof of a culpable mental state as to the element of being under the influence of an intoxicant. We hold that being under the influence of an intoxicant is a strict liability element and, therefore, affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
On January 16, 1988, an Oregon State Police officer arrested defendant for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII). An Intoxilizer test registered defendant's blood alcohol content (BAC) at 0.12 percent. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and the trial court found defendant guilty of DUII.
Defendant maintains that he had not been aware that he ingested an intoxicating beverage prior to driving on the date in question. Defendant states that at trial he made the following offer of proof:
Defense counsel argued as follows to the trial court:
The trial court stated:
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that "it should be appropriate for defendant to present as a defense that his status of being under the influence of intoxicants was not manifested in a voluntary manner, that is, that he lacked the requisite culpable mental state." (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals affirmed by declining to reconsider its decisions holding that DUII is a strict liability crime (State v. Maguire, 78 Or.App. 459, 717 P.2d 226 (1986), affirmed without opinion by an equally divided court, 303 Or. 368, 736 P.2d 193 (1987), and State v. Bunch, 87 Or.App. 386, 742 P.2d 74 (1987)). State v. Miller, 95 Or.App. 439, 769 P.2d 788 (1989).
ORS 161.105 delineates the circumstances under which a culpable mental state is not required for conviction. ORS 161.105 provides in pertinent part:
The DUII statute, ORS 813.010, provides:
Because ORS 813.010 was enacted after January 1, 1972, and is outside the Criminal Code, DUII is a strict liability crime if ORS 813.010 "clearly indicates a legislative intent to dispense with any culpable mental state requirement." ORS 161.105 (emphasis added). Although the legislature has not provided criteria concerning what constitutes a clear indication of legislative intent, this court has addressed that issue in two recent decisions.
In State v. Cho, 297 Or. 195, 681 P.2d 1152 (1984), the defendant was convicted of violating ORS 498.022, which prohibited the purchase or sale of "any wildlife, or any part thereof." Violation of the noncriminal code statute constituted a misdemeanor, but the statute contained no provision requiring a culpable mental state. The court held that ORS 498.022 required allegation and proof of a culpable mental state because the statute did not clearly indicate a legislative intent to dispense with such a requirement. 297 Or. at 202, 681 P.2d 1152. The court stated that "the mere enactment of a crime without an expressly required culpable mental state is insufficient to establish such a clear indication," adding that "the substantial state interest in the preservation of wildlife was insufficient to make the breach of ORS 498.022 a strict liability crime." 297 Or. at 201, 681 P.2d 1152.
In State v. Buttrey, 293 Or. 575, 651 P.2d 1075 (1982), the defendant was convicted of Driving While Suspended (DWS), in violation of former ORS 487.560. The court determined that the language of former ORS 487.560, coupled with its legislative history, clearly indicated a legislative intent to dispense with a culpable mental state requirement. 293 Or. at 585, 651 P.2d 1075. The court began with an examination of former ORS 487.560(1), which defined the crime as (1) driving a motor vehicle on the highway (2) during a period while the license is suspended. 293 Or. at 582, 651 P.2d 1075. The court noted that the language of former ORS 487.560(1) suggested that proof of these two elements alone, without reference to a culpable mental state, was enough to sustain a DWS conviction. The court, however, stated that the DWS definition alone was insufficient to constitute a clear indication of legislative intent.
The court did find the necessary intent to dispense with a culpable mental state requirement in other subsections of former ORS 487.560. The court reasoned that by making lack of notice of suspension an affirmative defense, the legislature demonstrated a clear intent that DWS be a strict liability offense. Thus, the court concluded that the statutory provisions considered together "clearly indicate that the legislature intended that the state, in its case in chief, need not prove any culpable mental state, but that the defendant might avoid conviction for conduct which is otherwise criminal by establishing one of the defenses enumerated in ORS 487.560(2)(b)." State v. Buttrey, supra, 293 Or. at 583-84, 651 P.2d 1075.
Buttrey also relied upon the legislative history of ORS 487.560 in finding that the legislature clearly intended to dispense with a culpable mental state requirement for DWS. The Project Director of the Interim Committee on Judiciary testified as follows concerning a 1975 revision to the DWS statute:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Samuels
...mental state requirement is not clearly indicated upon an examination of the terms of the provision alone. However, in State v. Miller, 309 Or. 362, 788 P.2d 974 (1990), the Oregon court would appear to have disregarded its Cho construct in the process of determining that the state's DUI st......
-
Mercer v. Department of Motor Vehicles
...New Jersey's position, noting that "drunk" driving or operating of a vehicle is a general intent crime. (See State v. Miller (1990) 309 Or. 362, 788 P.2d 974, 975-978; Joiner v. State (1955) 161 Tex.Crim. 526, 279 S.W.2d 333, 334; State v. Storrs (1933) 105 Vt. 180, 163 A. 560, 562.)20 The ......
-
State v. Turnidge
...of school, proximity to school is attendant circumstance, 374 P.3d 935 not something that defendant logically must know); State v. Miller, 309 Or. 362, 366, 788 P.2d 974 (1990) (for offense of driving intoxicated, intoxication is attendant circumstance that describes defendant's 359 Or. 502......
-
State v. Hedgpeth
...Laws GenerallyOregon has had laws prohibiting driving under the influence of intoxicants for more than 100 years. See State v. Miller , 309 Or. 362, 368, 788 P.2d 974 (1990) (citing Or. Laws 1917, ch. 29, § 1). The crime is currently codified at ORS 813.010, which provides,"(1) A person com......
-
The offense
...and a strong legislative policy to discourage long trials complicated by pretextual defenses” (emphasis added). See also State v. Miller , 788 P.2d 974 (Or. 1990) (no defense to drunk driving charge where defendant was unaware that a friend had spiked his coffee with alcohol). The common la......
-
§ 24.06 Involuntary Intoxication
...offense, it logically should not be a defense to a strict-liability crime because there is no mens rea to negate. E.g., State v. Miller, 788 P.2d 974 (Or. 1990) (M drank coffee, without knowledge that it had been spiked with alcohol by another; held: M may not claim involuntary intoxication......
-
§24.06 INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
...offense, it logically should not be a defense to a strict-liability crime, because there is no mens rea to negate. E.g., State v. Miller, 788 P.2d 974 (Or. 1990) (M drank coffee, without knowledge that it had been spiked with alcohol by another; held: M may not claim involuntary intoxicatio......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...2013), 394 Miller, State v., 622 N.W.2d 782 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000), 533 Miller, State v., 783 S.E.2d 512 (N.C. 2016), 165 Miller, State v., 788 P.2d 974 (Or. 1990), 312 Miller, State v., 929 P.2d 372 (Wash. 1997), 431 Mills v. State, 282 A.2d 147 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1971), 513 Mills, United S......