State v. West
250 Or. App. 196
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant convicted of DUII based on Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test showing .11 BAC.
- Defense sought broad discovery and a subpoena for Intoxilyzer source codes, schematics, contracts, and related studies.
- Trial court denied subpoenas and limited discovery under ORS 135.805–135.873; material outside these statutes not ordered.
- Statutory framework requires breath test admissibility to be based on ORS 813.160(1) compliance and related rules.
- Defendant argued constitutional rights (Due Process, Compulsory Process) and right to counsel necessitated broader discovery and funding.
- Court ultimately affirmed conviction, ruling discovery requests were not material or favorable under Brady/Koennecke and no abuse of discretion in denying funds or pretrial inspection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying discovery and subpoenas. | Defendant seeks material outside ORS 135.815 scope; not material or favorable per Brady/Koennecke. | Requests test the reliability of Intoxilyzer and seek information bearing on guilt. | No error; discovery denied as not material or favorable. |
| Whether the denial of indigent defense funds violated rights to a fair defense. | State failed to provide necessary expert testing to test reliability. | Funding needed to test device; denial prejudiced defense. | No abuse of discretion; no showing of probable value that would alter outcome. |
| Whether admission of Intoxilyzer results violated due process or Sixth Amendment. | Independent foundation for reliability required beyond statutory compliance. | Statutory recognition makes additional testimony unnecessary; cross-examination available. | Admissibility proper; no constitutional violation. |
| Whether the court erred in denying the requested jury instruction about device reliability. | Jury should decide trustworthiness of the machine before using results. | Instruction not preserved; not required as a matter of law. | No error; instruction not preserved and court did not err in declining. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Warner, 181 Or App 622 (2002) (foundational requirement for admissibility of breath test evidence under ORS 813.160)
- State v. Chipman, 176 Or App 284 (2001) (admissibility grounded in ORS 813.160 foundation)
- State v. Balderson, 138 Or App 531 (1996) (discussion of foundation and admissibility of breath test evidence)
- State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 (1995) (statutory recognition; no need for extra scientific reliability showing)
- State v. Koennecke, 274 Or 169 (1976) (Brady materiality and remedial disclosure standard)
- State v. Divito, 330 Or 319 (2000) (standard for reviewing discovery rulings as questions of law)