State v. Ortiz, 554 P.3d 796

Stephanie Andrea Ortiz was tried and convicted by a jury for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) in Oregon after a police officer administered two field sobriety tests (FSTs) and testified that these tests are standardized and validated by scientific studies.
Ortiz did not object at trial to the officer’s testimony characterizing the FSTs as scientifically valid tools for detecting impairment.
On appeal, Ortiz argued that the trial court committed plain error by allowing the officer's "scientific" testimony without a proper foundation; the Court of Appeals agreed, found the error not harmless, and reversed the conviction.
The Oregon Supreme Court took the case to clarify when plain error review (i.e., appellate correction of unpreserved errors) is warranted and the correct application of discretion at the second step of the plain error analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that an appellate court abuses its discretion by reversing solely based on a finding of non-harmless plain error, without weighing other relevant factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was admission of the officer’s testimony plain error?	Ortiz: Officer's statements about the FSTs as scientific evidence required foundational reliability; admitting without it was plain error.	State: Much of the testimony was admissible under established law; not clear this was plain error.	Supreme Court: Skipped deciding; assumed arguendo for analysis.
Should conviction be reversed based only on lack of harmlessness?	Ortiz: Non-harmless plain error in admitting scientific testimony required reversal.	State: Only a finding of non-harmlessness is insufficient; must articulate more under Ailes factors.	Supreme Court: Court of Appeals abused discretion; reversal must consider all Ailes factors, not just harmlessness.
What factors must appellate courts consider in plain error review?	Ortiz: Focused on whether error was plain and not harmless.	State: Must consider gravity, ends of justice, preservation policies, etc.	Supreme Court: All relevant Ailes factors must be considered in step two.
Was the Court of Appeals' remand appropriate?	Ortiz: Yes, based on identified plain error and harmlessness analysis.	State: No, remand must be based on complete discretionary analysis weighing factors.	Supreme Court: Yes, but remand must be for correct discretionary analysis.

State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 (Or. 1984) (established foundational requirements for admission of scientific evidence)
State v. O'Key, 321 Or 285 (Or. 1995) (affirmed trial court gatekeeping responsibility for scientific evidence, applied Daubert-like standards)
State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160 (Or. 2006) (described two-step plain error review and appellate discretion)
State v. Fults, 343 Or 515 (Or. 2007) (court must articulate reasons and weigh all relevant factors in plain error reversals)
State v. Mazzola, 356 Or 804 (Or. 2015) (recognized field sobriety tests as indicators based on common knowledge)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376 (Or. 1991) (established Oregon’s two-step plain error review and listed key factors for reversal)