State v. Gibbs

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gibbs

89 P.3d 1215, 193 Or. App. 296, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 28, 2004

Docket010545693; A118270

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 P.3d 1215 (State v. Gibbs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Gibbs, 89 P.3d 1215, 193 Or. App. 296, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 541 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, ORS 813.010(1). His defense at trial was that he had previously suffered a severe head trauma and that the apparent symptoms of intoxication that the officer observed were in fact the result of that injury. Over his objection, the trial court gave Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction 2076, which informs the jury that a defendant whose physical condition makes the defendant more susceptible to the influence of alcohol than the defendant would otherwise be is nevertheless under the influence of intoxicants. See State v. Miles, 8 Or App 189, 492 P2d 497, rev den (1972).

We have held that there must be evidence that the defendant’s condition made him more susceptible to the influence of alcohol before a trial court may give a Miles instruction. State v. Huck, 100 Or App 193, 197, 785 P2d 785 (1990). There is no such evidence in this case. Giving a Miles instruction in the absence of that evidence is reversible error. See State v. Curtis, 182 Or App 166, 169, 47 P3d 929, rev den, 335 Or 104 (2002). The state concedes that the trial court erred, and we agree.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants, ORS 813.010(1). His defense at trial was that he had previously suffered a severe head trauma and that the apparent symptoms of intoxication that the officer observed were in fact the result of that injury. Over his objection, the trial court gave Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction 2076, which informs the jury that a defendant whose physical condition makes the defendant more susceptible to the influence of alcohol than the defendant would otherwise be is nevertheless under the influence of intoxicants. See State v. Miles, 8 Or App 189, 492 P2d 497, rev den (1972).

We have held that there must be evidence that the defendant’s condition made him more susceptible to the influence of alcohol before a trial court may give a Miles instruction. State v. Huck, 100 Or App 193, 197, 785 P2d 785 (1990). There is no such evidence in this case. Giving a Miles instruction in the absence of that evidence is reversible error. See State v. Curtis, 182 Or App 166, 169, 47 P3d 929, rev den, 335 Or 104 (2002). The state concedes that the trial court erred, and we agree.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 P.3d 1215, 193 Or. App. 296, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gibbs-orctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack