State v. Guardipee
239 Or. App. 44
| Or. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Guardipee was convicted of DUII and failure to appear on a criminal citation in Oregon.
- Guardipee appealed, challenging (1) a jury instruction on the meaning of driving and (2) admission of a bench warrant as substantive evidence for failure to appear.
- Guardipee proposed a special jury instruction defining driving as steering or controlling a motor vehicle in motion; the court declined to give it.
- Guardipee did not object with a formal exception after the jury instruction was given, though she had earlier excepted to the court’s failure to give the instruction.
- The court held ORCP 59 H(1) bars review of unpreserved instructional error unless a narrow plain error exception applies, which did not in this case.
- The court rejected Guardipee’s challenge to the bench warrant’s admissibility, aligning with a recent Oregon decision, State v. Carter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of jury instruction error | Guardipee argues error in not giving the driving definition. | Guardipee contends the instruction was legally required. | Unreviewable due to lack of exception. |
| Admission of bench warrant as substantive evidence | Guardipee asserts public records exception and confrontation rights issues. | State contends bench warrant is admissible under public records and Carter supports it. | Affirmed admission following Carter rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 238 Or.App. 417 (2010) (public records admission; confrontation considerations; aligns with the Carter decision)
- State v. Toth, 213 Or.App. 505 (2007) (plain error review limited; ORCP 59 H not jurisdictionally broad for unpreserved errors)
- State v. Pervish, 202 Or.App. 442 (2005) (limits on plain error review for instructional errors)
- Cestaro v. State of Oregon, 229 Or.App. 8 (2009) (preservation requirement for jury instruction challenges)