256 P.3d 196
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Donovan was convicted in New York in 2004 of driving while ability impaired under VTL 1192(1).
- In 2008, Donovan was charged with DUII in Oregon and petitioned for a diversion agreement.
- The trial court held that New York VTL 1192(1) is a statutory counterpart to Oregon’s ORS 813.010, making Donovan ineligible for diversion.
- Donovan entered a conditional guilty plea preserving appeal of the diversion eligibility ruling.
- The central issue on appeal was whether VTL 1192(1) qualifies as a statutory counterpart to ORS 813.010.
- The court ultimately held that VTL 1192(1) is a statutory counterpart and Donovan is not eligible for diversion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is NY VTL 1192(1) a statutory counterpart to ORS 813.010 for diversion eligibility? | Donovan contends NY statute is a counterpart. | Donovan argues no counterpart due to differences in scope and labeling. | Yes; NY 1192(1) is a statutory counterpart. |
| Do ORS 813.215(1)(a)(B) and (C) alter the meaning of 'statutory counterpart'? | Subparagraphs narrow the concept. | Subparagraphs have independent meaning for non-general DUII statutes. | No; amendments preserve independent meaning of (B) and (C). |
| If NY statute is a counterpart, is Donovan ineligible for diversion under ORS 813.215(1)? | Counterpart triggers ineligibility. | Counterpart status is not established; may be eligible. | Ineligible due to counterpart status. |
| What is the proper interpretation of 'statutory counterpart' in light of legislative history? | History shows broad application. | History does not narrow counterpart; maintains prior interpretation. | Legislative history supports preserving counterpart meaning. |
| Do distinctions in labeling (crime vs. infraction) defeat similarity to ORS 813.010 for purposes of divisional eligibility? | Infraction labeling undermines equivalence. | Offense type does not defeat functional similarity for counterpart purpose. | Labeling does not defeat alignment; substantive similarity suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rawleigh, 222 Or.App. 121 (2008) (statutory counterparts may have differences but share common DUII purposes)
- State v. Mersman, 216 Or.App. 194 (2007) (counterparts need not be identical; same use/role suffices)
- State v. Ortiz, 202 Or.App. 695 (2005) (counterpart analysis focuses on use and function, not element-for-element match)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (2009) (legislative history informs interpretation of DUII counterpart provisions)
- State v. Stamper, 197 Or.App. 413 (2005) (statutory interpretation principles relevant to division of statutes)
- State v. Burke, 241 Or.App. 658 (2011) (avoid redundancy in statutory interpretation; ordinary disjunctive meanings)