State v. EUMANA-MORANCHEL
277 P.3d 549
Or.2012Background
- Defendant stopped at 3:08 a.m. for weaving; field sobriety tests failed; breath test at 4:42 a.m. showed BAC .064, below .08.
- Prosecution sought to prove DUII under ORS 813.010(1)(a) by showing BAC ≥ .08 at time of driving, using retrograde extrapolation from the breath test.
- Trial court excluded expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation; state appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding retrograde extrapolation derived from a chemical analysis is admissible.
- Oregon Supreme Court majority held retrograde extrapolation admissible to connect post-test BAC to driving-time BAC; dissent would limit to a chemical analysis showing .08% at test time or higher, not extrapolation.
- Key statutes involve ORS 813.010(1)(a) and ORS 813.300; breath/blood chemical analyses do not always reflect driving-time BAC, requiring explanatory evidence; the majority relies on statutory framework to permit extrapolation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 813.010(1)(a) permits retrograde extrapolation to prove BAC at driving time. | Eumana-Moranchel; BAC at driving time shown by extrapolation from test. | O'Key/Clark line; only chemical analysis shows BAC; extrapolation not allowed. | Yes; retrograde extrapolation admissible to show driving-time BAC. |
| Does the breath test BAC at test time | State can link test results to driving time. | Test time BAC not equal to driving time; extrapolation needed. | Yes; admissible explanatory evidence connecting test result to driving time. |
| Is retrograde extrapolation a chemical analysis under ORS 813.010(1)(a) and admissible evidence? | Extrapolation derives from chemical analysis; admissible. | Extraneous non-chemical method; not a chemical analysis. | Admissible; retrograde extrapolation is permissible evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O'Key, 321 Or. 285 (1995) (chemical analysis required to prove .08+ BAC under ORS 813.010(1)(a) (HGN issue in O'Key))
- State v. Clark, 286 Or. 33 (1979) (chemical analysis required; permitted impeachment of test results but not broad extrapolation)
- State v. Parker, 317 Or. 225 (1993) (dissipation knowledge; common knowledge about alcohol dissipation; context for extrapolation)
- State v. Johnson, 219 Or. App. 200 (2008) (trial court error re observable indicia of intoxication not admissible to prove BAC)
- State v. King, 316 Or. 437 (1993) (DUII proofs: BAC or perceptible impairment; single offense with multiple proof routes)