564 P.3d 933
Or. Ct. App.2025Background
- Defendant, Jade Damian Starr, was convicted of DUII after found unconscious in the driver’s seat of a car that had traveled off the road, with signs of intoxication present.
- Defendant admitted to consuming a Xanax pill and a can of beer, but maintained this occurred after he stopped driving due to fatigue and a panic attack, not before or while operating the vehicle.
- Field sobriety tests suggested impairment, and a breath test at jail showed a BAC of 0.16 percent.
- At trial, the defense argued the state could not prove Starr was intoxicated while actually driving, only that he was impaired when found.
- The prosecution, during closing argument, commented on defendant's failure to produce a Xanax prescription or bottle, implying a need for corroboration of his account.
- Defendant’s objection to the prosecution’s comment was overruled by the trial court, and the jury convicted him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution's closing comment improperly shifted burden | Defendant’s lack of corroborating evidence weakens his theory | Defendant is not required to present evidence; burden remains with state | Prosecutor’s argument improperly shifted burden; trial court erred in overruling objection |
| Whether denying motion to suppress was error | Deputy’s use of a flashlight was not a search | Flashlight use and entry into car was unconstitutional search | Use of flashlight was not a search; entry justified under emergency aid exception |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Totland, 296 Or App 527 (distinguishes permissible and impermissible closing arguments regarding defendant’s evidence).
- State v. Purrier, 265 Or App 618 (reviews whether a prosecutor’s argument misstated law concerning burden of proof).
- State v. Faulkner, 102 Or App 417 (use of flashlight to observe car interior not a "search" under constitutional law).
- State v. Peek, 310 Or App 587 (flashlight use to see inside a vehicle in darkness is constitutionally permissible).
- State v. Davis, 336 Or 19 (addresses harmless error standard for determining necessity of reversal).