State v. King , 114 Or. App. 32 ( 1992 )

DURHAM, J.,

dissenting.

I agree with the majority that the court properly rejected defendant’s requested instruction concerning the weight to be given the breath test evidence. However, I disagree with the majority’s analysis of defendant’s argument based on ORS 813.010 and State v. Boots, 308 Or 371, 780 P2d 725 (1989), and, therefore, dissent from that portion of the opinion.

ORS 813.010 provides:

“(1) A person commits the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants if the person drives a vehicle while the person:

“(a) Has .08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood of the person as shown by chemical analysis of the breath or blood of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140 or 813.150;

“(b) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance; or

“(c) Is under the influence of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance.”

“Driving under the influence of intoxicants” is the title of the offense described in ORS 813.010, but the statute does not designate being “under the influence of intoxicants” as a fact that must be proven for a conviction. The body of the statute specifies the factual elements and requires the state to prove that at least one of three facts described in subsections (a), (b) and (c) existed while the defendant drove a vehicle. The majority holds that the facts listed in the subsections are merely “evidence,” but the text does not support that. The list of facts is expressed in the disjunctive. Proof of at least one of them is no less essential to a conviction than proving that the defendant drove a vehicle.

State v. Boots found fault with an instruction that relieved the jury of its duty unanimously to find a fact — an aggravating circumstance — essential to its verdict of aggravated murder. The majority points out that the 17 different acts that could elevate a murder to an aggravated murder under ORS 163.095 are not synonymous and do not overlap. According to the majority, Boots is distinguishable, because the acts described in the subsections of ORS 813.010(1) are synonymous by operation of ORS 813.300(2), which equates a .08 blood alcohol content with being under the influence of intoxicating liquor. From that, the majority concludes that a driver’s blood alcohol content is not an essential fact or element of the offense and is merely evidence from which a jury can infer guilt.

That is correct in part, but it does not answer defendant’s argument. The court’s instruction permitted jurors to vote to convict defendant despite any disagreement about whether he had done one of the acts described in ORS 813.010(l)(a), (b) and (c). The synonymity created by ORS 813.300(2) does not relieve the jury of its responsibility to reach a consensus about the course of conduct that establishes a fact essential to the offense.

The principle underlying Boots is the requirement of jury agreement on each fact that is necessary to establish every statutory element required for conviction. Boots quotes with approval the words of Judge Wisdom in United States v. Gipson, 553 F2d 453, 457 (5th Cir 1977):

“ ‘Like the “reasonable doubt” standard, which was found to be an indispensable element in all criminal trials in In re Winship, 1970, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068,25 L.Ed.2d 368, the unanimous jury requirement “impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude on the facts in issue.” 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. at 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d at 375. The unanimity rule thus requires jurors to be in substantial agreement as to just what a defendant did as a step preliminary to determining whether the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. Requiring the vote of twelve jurors to convict a defendant does little to insure that his right to a unanimous verdict is protected unless this prerequisite of jury consensus as to the defendant’s course of action is also required.’ (Footnotes omitted.)” State v. Boots, supra, 308 Or at 380. (Emphasis supplied.)

The italicized portion of that quotation correctly focuses the requirement of jury unanimity on the defendant’s “course of action.” Gipson and Boots reject the notion that jury unanimity can consist of the concurrence of a sufficient number of jurors on an ultimate conclusion that the defendant should be convicted, although their view of the decisive facts is not unanimous. The Boots opinion expressly rejected this court’s use of that faulty rationale in State v. Hazelett, 8 Or App 44, 492 P2d 501 (1972), where we saw no reason to require jury agreement on which of two possible mental states, both equally culpable, accompanied the act of homicide.

Even though having a .08 blood alcohol content, ORS 813.010(l)(a), could also support a finding that a driver was under the influence of alcohol under ORS 813.010(l)(b) or (c), neither that possible overlap in evidentiary effect nor the evidentiary conclusion created by ORS 813.300(2) makes those specific behaviors conceptually identical. The Boots requirement of jury unanimity is triggered when the essential facts required to establish an offense are conceptually distinct or when a jury would face characterization problems in distinguishing between them. See United States v. Gipson, 553 F2d 453, 458 (5th Cir 1977) (cited with approval in State v. Boots, supra, 308 Or at 381 n 9); see also Annot., 75 ALR 4th 91 (1990). That requirement does not mean that jurors would have to agree on a particular witness’ credibility or the factual details about how each essential fact was committed. State v. Boots, supra, 308 Or at 379.

I would apply the rationale of State v. Boots. here. ORS 813.010(1) requires jury unanimity on at least one of the three acts described in subsections (a), (b) or (c), in addition to the act of driving a vehicle. Subsection (a) describes a particular act, i.e. having a .08 blood alcohol content, which can be proven only by specific test evidence. ORS 813.100; ORS 813.140; ORS 813.150. Evidence that a driver admitted consuming alcohol, drove erratically or failed a field sobriety test will not suffice to establish that he had a .08 blood alcohol content. Subsections (b) and (c) describe other methods of proving the offense. The state must prove that the driver was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or a controlled substance. State v. Miller, 309 Or 362, 369, 788 P2d 974 (1990). The proof must establish that the driver was under the influence of, i.e. perceptibly affected by, say, alcohol, and the state may rely on a variety of evidence to prove the essential fact, such as slurred speech, unsteady gait and a strong odor of alcohol on the breath. The specific acts of a driver described in ORS 813.010(l)(a), (b) and (c) are sufficiently distinguishable that jury unanimity about them is essential to a fair trial. Without requiring jury unanimity on the specific course of conduct that establishes each decisive fact, we again commit the error in State v. Hazelett, for which we were criticized in State v. Boots.

The court’s instruction permitted the jurors to convict defendant despite any differences among them about whether the state proved a .08 blood alcohol content or that defendant was perceptibly under the influence of liquor. It is not adequate simply to count the votes for conviction. To paraphrase State v. Boots, the jury must confront the question of whether it agrees that one of the essential facts required by ORS 813.010(l)(a), (b) or (c) has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 308 Or at 375. Because the court’s instruction erroneously relieved the jury of that obligation, and defendant’s instruction would have cured the problem, the court erred in refusing defendant’s instruction. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.