State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL
243 Or. App. 496
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Police stopped defendant at 3:08 a.m. for weaving and observed intoxication after he admitted drinking three beers.
- Bars close around 2:00–2:30 a.m., relevant to timing of drinking.
- Defendant was arrested for DUII and taken to a station where a breath test was properly administered, concluding at 4:42 a.m.
- Testimony showed a breath BAC report of .06% at the time of testing.
- State presented expert Bessett who discussed Widmark’s formula and back extrapolation to estimate BAC at the time of driving.
- Trial court excluded the expert’s BAC-back-extrapolation testimony under prior Oregon rulings; issue on appeal is admissibility under ORS 813.010(1)(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BAC back extrapolation is admissible under ORS 813.010(1)(a). | State: extrapolated BAC is derived from chemical test and admissible. | Defendant: ORS 813.010(1)(a) permits only chemical test results. | Admissible; extrapolated BAC basing on chemical analysis allowed. |
| Whether chemical-analysis-derived testimony may prove BAC at or above .08% for DUII. | State: BAC at stop can be proven via chemical-analysis-derived testimony. | Defendant: such testimony is not allowed unless directly from chemical analysis. | Admissible because testimony derives from chemical analysis of breath. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O'Key, 321 Or. 285 (1995) (requires chemical analysis to prove .08% BAC; non-chemical tests not admissible to prove BAC)
- State v. Ross, 147 Or.App. 634 (1997) (non-chemical evidence cannot prove BAC; supports exclusion of non-chemical BAC testimony)
- State v. Johnson, 219 Or.App. 200 (2008) (harmless error analysis when BAC improperly admitted)