Oregon Appeals Court: Sleep Driving Does Not Excuse DUI
An Oregon man attempted to escape conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) by claiming he was “sleep driving” and not responsible for his actions. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals shut down the argument as utterly irrelevant. Even if what he said were true, driving while drunk and asleep would still be a crime.
James Robert Newman left his car at his apartment and walked to a restaurant to have dinner and drinks with friends. Those friends then offered Newman a ride home. Later that evening, a police officer saw Newman’s car turn left without signaling, run a red light and drive down the middle of the street. When the officer turned on his overhead lights, Newman pulled over. He reeked of alcohol and failed the standard battery of field sobriety tests. He was taken to the station where he blew 0.15 on a breathalyzer.
“At trial, defendant admitted that he was intoxicated but sought to present evidence that he did not consciously drive or control his car,” Presiding Judge Darleen Ortega wrote. “He testified that he was not aware of leaving his apartment, going to his car, starting the car, or driving it. According to defendant, after he went to sleep that evening, the next thing he was aware of was the police car lights flashing behind him.”
Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen M. Dailey was not interested in hearing this evidence as it was not relevant. Newman appealed, insisting he should have been allowed to present his case. For the sake of argument, the appellate judges considered whether it would make a difference were Newman’s claims accepted as true. The judges looked to determine whether the legislature intended DUI to be a crime requiring one be aware of his actions, having a “culpable mental state.” A general state statute, ORS 161.085, requires requires an intentional act for someone to be criminally liable, but the courts have interpreted this to allow the legislature to create exceptions.
The state supreme court considered the mental state issue in a 1990 case Oregon v. Miller. The justices found that in 70 years, no court ruling or legislative act had ever required the state to prove the driver was acting intentionally to convict for DUI.
“Defendant’s arguments for reconsidering Miller are properly addressed to the Supreme Court, not to this court,” Ortega wrote. “We agree with the trial court that DUII is a strict liability offense and that, therefore, the evidence concerning defendant’s mental state is irrelevant. Affirmed.”
A copy of the decision is available in a 30k PDF file at the source link below.
Source:
Oregon v. Newman (Court of Appeals, State of Oregon, 11/2/2011)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
More by The Newspaper
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Another Hyunkia'sis?
- FreedMike "It would be on my shopping list – especially since the price tag is pretty nice at $33,700 (plus $1,150 for D and D) for the manual and $35,200 plus destination for the DCT." True, but that's BEFORE the dealer markups, which are ludicrous.
- Jeff Tim--Thanks always good to have a car review especially a car with a manual transmission.
- Analoggrotto The best in the segment, hands down bar none. ATPs translate directly to street cred and Hyundai's got them. The GR Corolla regularly blows up engines while a pentagon certified data racing engine is installed in each and every one of these Rhys Millen proud machines. Proud to be an HMC fan.
- EBFlex Tesla is garbage. Engineering is woefully inadequate. This is what happens when tech bros design vehicles and not automotive engineers. And before the usual mouth breathers come by and spew their typical nonsense, yes, I acknowledge that this has happened before. But injecting some context into this, this is yet another issue in a very long line of serious issues with the CyberPuke. If you can't design a safe accelerator pedal, you should not be in the automotive business.
Comments
Join the conversation
Newman should have had Don Adams for an attorney: Would you believe.....drunk, asleep, AND on crack?
Or Patrick Kennedy's lawyer.