338 P.3d 795
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant drove a BMW off an exit ramp onto a two-lane westbound road and stopped in the right lane with his left turn signal on.
- The vehicle remained stopped while attempting to move left; two cars in the left lane and one vehicle behind in the right lane had to slow, and one left-lane vehicle swerved to avoid the BMW.
- Officer Kingsbury observed the conduct around 3:00 p.m., pulled the defendant over, and was told the defendant stopped so his son could use the bathroom; officer testified stopping in the travel lane was not safe.
- Defendant was cited for impeding traffic under ORS 811.130, tried in municipal court, and convicted after a bench trial.
- On appeal, defendant argued insufficient evidence and asserted statutory exceptions (momentary stop preparing to exit) applied; municipality did not appear on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved defendant impeded or blocked normal and reasonable movement of traffic under ORS 811.130(1) | State: evidence that multiple vehicles slowed and one swerved showed defendant impeded traffic | Defendant: only momentary stop, minimal slowing of one vehicle; did not block or impede traffic | Court: Evidence (stop, caused slowing and swerve, multiple vehicles present) sufficient for preponderance to prove impeding traffic |
| Whether defendant proved statutory exception for "proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation" (ORS 811.130(2),(3)) | State: exception is an affirmative defense; defendant must prove it and did not | Defendant: momentarily stopped to prepare exit / emergency to allow child to use bathroom qualifies as exception | Court: Defendant bore burden; record did not compel finding exception applied (stop not clearly "momentary" and officer testimony contradicted safety claim) |
| Applicability of State v. Tiffin precedent (whether similar facts negate impeding) | State: distinguishes Tiffin — here multiple vehicles, complete stop, caused swerve and slowing | Defendant: relied on Tiffin to argue lack of impediment | Court: Distinguished Tiffin — different facts (daytime, other vehicles present, complete stop causing others to swerve/slow) |
| Standard of review on sufficiency challenge | N/A | N/A | Court: review evidence in light most favorable to state; determine if any rational trier of fact could find elements proved by preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bainbridge, 230 Or. App. 500 (discusses sufficiency review standard for violations)
- State v. Tiffin, 202 Or. App. 199 (defendant not shown to have impeded traffic where lone car traveled slightly under limit and officers could have passed)
- State v. Boly, 210 Or. App. 132 (exceptions in ORS 811.130 are affirmative defenses that defendant must prove)
- State v. (Municipal Court) 230 Or. App. 500 (court applied preponderance/sufficiency standard)