Use of blood alcohol percentage as evidence
- percentage required for being under the influence
Source:
Section 813.300 — Use of blood alcohol percentage as evidence; percentage required for being under the influence, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors813.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute
Court must make preliminary determination as to whether witness had valid current permit to operate breathalyzer at time of test, and comment of court that officer was qualified to operate machine did not invade province of jury. State v. Winters, 34 Or App 157, 578 P2d 439 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Blood test results were admissible in trial for manslaughter though performed by criminologists not in possession of valid permit required by [former] ORS 487.815, as [former] ORS 487.820 permits introduction of any competent, relevant evidence in proceeding other than for driving under influence of intoxicants notwithstanding violations of implied consent law. State v. Heintz, 34 Or App 175, 578 P2d 447 (1978) as modified by 35 Or App 155, 580 P2d 1064 (1978), aff’d 286 Or 239, 594 P2d 385 (1979)
Defendant may offer testimony of non-expert witness relating to any or all common signs of intoxication for purpose of attacking accuracy of blood alcohol test without first laying foundation by expert witness. State v. Clark, 286 Or 33, 593 P2d 123 (1979)
In order for test results to determine blood alcohol level to be admissible under this section they must be performed by person with valid permit from Health Division. State v. Hilton, 49 Or App 927, 620 P2d 970 (1980), Sup Ct review denied
Use of term “motor vehicle” in this section instead of “vehicle” used elsewhere in vehicles statutes did not preclude admission of breathalyzer test results where defendant was coasting vehicle down hill without engine running. State v. Fisher, 57 Or App 776, 646 P2d 652 (1982)
Fact that legislature has adopted certain percentage of alcohol in the blood as legally constituting being under influence of intoxicants is not relevant circumstantial evidence in civil case to show driver was visibly intoxicated. Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689, 696 P2d 513 (1985)
In general
Where, at hearing, police officer testified that all statutory and administrative requirements, including 15-minute pretest period had been met and trial judge was satisfied with proof except for failure of officer to testify to precise time when observation began and sample was taken, officer’s testimony that test was performed in accordance with such requirements was substantial evidence sufficient to support hearings officer’s orders. Andries v. MVD, 88 Or App 425, 745 P2d 809 (1987)
Up to date