State v. Miller
309 Or. 362, 788 P.2d 974, 1990 Ore. LEXIS 31 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) is a strict liability offense, meaning the prosecution is not required to prove that the defendant possessed a culpable mental state regarding the element of being under the influence.
Facts:
- On January 16, 1988, defendant Miller was ill, suffering from a sore throat and an inability to taste or smell.
- Miller was with a friend who had been drinking beer; Miller did not want his friend to drive.
- While watching movies, Miller's friend prepared him a special coffee drink with a minty taste, calling it a home remedy that would make him feel better.
- Miller drank a full coffee cup of the beverage.
- Miller was unaware the drink contained any alcoholic beverage.
- He did not learn of the drink's alcoholic content until the next day when he spoke with his friend.
- After consuming the drink, Miller drove his car and was stopped by an Oregon State Police officer.
- An Intoxilizer test revealed Miller had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.12 percent.
Procedural Posture:
- Miller was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) in an Oregon trial court.
- Miller waived his right to a jury trial.
- At his bench trial, Miller made an offer of proof that his intoxication was involuntary, arguing that the state must prove a culpable mental state for a DUII conviction.
- The trial court ruled that DUII is a strict liability offense, making the evidence of involuntary intoxication irrelevant, and found Miller guilty.
- Miller, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding its precedent that DUII is a strict liability crime.
- The Supreme Court of Oregon granted review to decide the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) under Oregon law require the prosecution to prove that the defendant had a culpable mental state regarding their intoxication?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No, a conviction for DUII does not require proof of a culpable mental state because being under the influence of an intoxicant is a strict liability element of the offense. The court determined that the DUII statute, ORS 813.010, clearly indicates a legislative intent to dispense with a mental state requirement. This intent is inferred not from the statute's text alone, but from its 70-year history of never requiring culpability, the legislature's consistent efforts to toughen DUII laws for public safety, and the public policy goal of removing dangerous drivers from the road. The court reasoned that being intoxicated is a 'status,' and a person's mental state is irrelevant to the existence of that status. Therefore, anyone who drives a vehicle after consuming intoxicants, knowingly or not, assumes the risk of violating the law.
Concurring - Gillette, J.
No. The majority's conclusion is correct, and the clearest evidence of legislative intent is the fact that the legislature reenacted the DUII statutes without any reference to a culpable mental state after the general culpability requirements of the criminal code (ORS 161.105) were established. This legislative action provides a sufficiently clear message that DUII is a strict liability crime. However, the dissent is correct that the court's prior decision in State v. Cho was likely wrongly decided, but it does not need to be reconsidered in this case.
Dissenting - Carson, J.
Yes, a conviction for DUII should require proof of a culpable mental state. The Oregon Criminal Code establishes a strong default policy that criminal liability requires a guilty mind, and an exception for strict liability requires a 'clear indication' of legislative intent. Citing State v. Cho, the dissent argues that the mere absence of a mental state in the DUII statute's text is insufficient to provide such a clear indication. Unlike other statutes found to be strict liability, the DUII law lacks any textual structure, such as affirmative defenses, to support this conclusion. The majority improperly relies on legislative silence and public policy arguments to override the code's general requirement for culpability, and thus Miller should have been permitted to present his defense of involuntary intoxication.
Dissenting - Fadeley, J.
Yes, a defense based on unknowing ingestion should be permitted because holding DUII to be a strict liability crime in these circumstances raises grave constitutional concerns. The majority's holding prevents a defendant from having a meaningful jury trial by barring a defense that shows a lack of criminal responsibility. It is 'preposterous' to believe the legislature intended to criminalize the act of driving after drinking a cup of coffee that a friend provided, without any knowledge of its alcoholic content. The policy of removing drunk drivers from the road is not served by convicting a person who made no understanding choice to create a risk.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies DUII as a strict liability public welfare offense in Oregon, prioritizing the public safety goal of removing impaired drivers over the traditional criminal law principle of 'mens rea' (a guilty mind). The court expanded the method for finding legislative intent for strict liability, allowing reliance on legislative history and policy context rather than explicit statutory text. This significantly limits the defenses available to individuals charged with DUII, precluding claims of mistake of fact or involuntary intoxication where the defendant was unaware they had consumed alcohol. The case highlights the ongoing legal tension between protecting the public and ensuring criminal punishment is reserved for morally blameworthy conduct.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Miller