State v. Carter
238 Or. App. 417
| Or. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Carter was convicted of careless driving and failure to appear on a criminal citation after a uniform citation charged reckless driving (ORS 811.135, ORS 133.076).
- The citation/complaint included a scheduled circuit court appearance date, time, and location; the officer certified service of the complaint.
- A bench/arrest warrant issued for failure to appear stated the charge as reckless driving and directed arrest and arraignment; Carter was later charged by amended information with failure to appear and reckless driving.
- Carter waived jury trial on the failure to appear charge; the state offered the citation/complaint and the warrant as proof of knowledge.
- Carter moved for judgment of acquittal and objected to admitting the warrant as a public record and for confrontation concerns; the trial court denied the motion and admitted the warrant.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence could support knowledge that Carter knowingly failed to appear and that the warrant was admissible public record and not testimonial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence Carter knowingly failed to appear? | Rogers; inclusion of citation/complaint suffices to prove knowledge. | No proof she knew of the duty to appear. | Yes; knowledge inferred from citation/appearance directive and service. |
| Is the bench/arrest warrant admissible as a public record and non-testimonial? | Warrant falls under OEC 803(8)(a) as a public record; its purpose is administrative. | Warrant is hearsay and testimonial, violating confrontation. | Yes; admissible as public record and non-testimonial. |
| Does admission of the warrant violate the Confrontation Clause? | Warrant is non-testimonial; Melendez-Diaz framework applies but not to this document. | Admission constitutes testimonial evidence without cross-examination. | No; warrant not testimonial, so no Crawford/Melendez-Diaz error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cervantes, 319 Or. 121 (1994) (defines standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Rogers, 185 Or. App. 141 (2002) (discusses proof of mental state including knowledge of obligation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 250 (2009) (distinguishes business/public records from testimonial certificates)