State v. Clark
256 Or. App. 428
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant was convicted of seven misdemeanors arising from a foggy-night intersection collision, including DUII and six recklessness-based offenses.
- At trial, the prosecutor requested a driver-duties instruction; defense objected, arguing it reflected negligence rather than recklessness.
- The court edited and gave a general duties-of-a-driver instruction describing reasonable speed, lookout, and control, followed by the offense definitions.
- Defense proposed a sentence clarifying that a breach of these duties is not reckless in itself, but the court declined after the prosecutor objected.
- Defendant preserved only the argument that the instruction mis-stated the recklessness standard; she did not preserve the clarifying sentence issue.
- The court instructed the jury on recklessness with a definition aligned to ORS 161.085(9); the jury convicted on all counts, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the driver-duties instruction misstate the recklessness standard? | Stringer supports using driver duties to define recklessness. | Instruction conveyed negligence rather than recklessness, risking improper conviction. | No reversible error; instruction correctly stated care standard and aided recklessness determination. |
| Was defendant's second-assignment preserved for review? | Defendant argued misapplication of duties in first assignment; preserves critical point. | Second assignment seeks a clarification not adequately presented. | Not preserved; second assignment waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stringer v. State, 49 Or App 51, 618 P.2d 1309 (Or. App. 1980) (driver duties instruction admissible to explain recklessness standard)
- Morehouse v. Haynes, 350 Or 318, 253 P.3d 1068 (Or. 2011) (recklessness standard linked to reasonable driver standard)
- State v. Tucker, 241 Or App 457, 251 P3d 224 (Or. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing jury instructions—probable impact on result)
- State v. Bowen, 340 Or 487, 135 P.3d 272 (Or. 2006) (constitutional review of jury instructions and harmless error)