State v. Lewis
290 P.3d 288
| Or. | 2012Background
- Defendant Devin S. Lewis, a licensed commercial truck driver, collided with a stopped catering truck, killing its driver; charged with criminally negligent homicide under ORS 163.145(1).
- Trial was a bench proceeding after suppression motions; the trial court convicted Lewis and explained its reasoning in detail.
- Morrison witnesses observed Lewis's driving for six to seven miles prior to the collision, describing risky maneuvers and lack of attention.
- Physical evidence showed Lewis was in a protracted state of inattention, wet road conditions, an unloaded trailer, and maximum legal speed in a safety corridor; stopping distance and skid marks contradicted Lewis's statements.
- Court identified the central issue as whether the evidence established the mental state of criminal negligence under ORS 161.085(10), which sits between negligence and recklessness; the record supported a gross deviation from reasonable care under the circumstances.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Oregon Supreme Court reviews de novo to determine sufficiency of the evidence under the criminal negligence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morrison testimony is relevant to Lewis's state of mind | State argues prior driving shows ongoing lack of awareness and care | Lewis contends prior driving is irrelevant unless linked to time of collision | Relevant and probative to state of mind; not unduly prejudicial |
| Whether evidence proves criminal negligence under ORS 161.085(10) | State asserts gross deviation from care given risk; lack of awareness suffices | Lewis argues standard requires more blameworthy conduct than mere inattentiveness | Evidence supports a gross deviation and lack of awareness, satisfying criminal negligence |
| Whether standard for criminal negligence should mirror civil negligence or require 'seriously blameworthy' conduct | State contends statute does not require 'seriously blameworthy' conduct | Lewis urges Boutin-style requirement of serious blameworthiness | Statute requires lack of awareness of a substantial risk and a gross deviation; not all conduct must be 'seriously blameworthy' |
| Whether the trial court’s articulation of criminal negligence was proper given evidence of inattention | State argues trial court properly weighed factors and avoided jury misdirection | Lewis contends insufficient evidence of a protracted, avoidable risk | Record supports trial court’s determination of criminal negligence |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to support avoidability findings (should Lewis have steered right to avoid collision) | State shows ample room on paved shoulder; avoidance feasible | Lewis asserts avoidance was not possible given conditions and timing | Evidence supports avoidability and thus criminal negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Betts v. State, 235 Or 127 (Or. 1963) (evidence of prior driving relevant to state of mind, not necessarily identical conduct)
- Clegg v. State, 332 Or 432 (Or. 2001) (relevancy has low threshold under OEC 401)
- Salas-Juarez v. State, 349 Or 419 (Or. 2010) (ongoing state of mind may be shown by prior conduct)
- Morehouse v. Haynes, 350 Or 318 (Or. 2011) (describes civil context distinctions between negligence and recklessness; informs criminal negligence analysis)
- Hill v. State, 298 Or 270 (Or. 1984) (premise that commercial vehicle dynamics affect risk and stopping)
- State v. Warner, 298 Or 640 (Or. 1985) (persuasive authority for interpreting adopted statutes)