The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday threw out a drunken driving conviction on grounds the man should have had a chance to tell the jury he was actually driving in his sleep and was not responsible for his actions.
The ruling could set a new standard for drunken driving cases by requiring prosecutors to prove the driver voluntarily got behind the wheel, the Oregonian reported (http://bit.ly/14fECFO ).
Reversing the Oregon Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for 51-year-old James Robert Newman of Portland, saying Oregon law requires someone to commit a voluntary act to be held responsible for a crime.
Newman got a ride home after drinking at a restaurant in 2008 and went to sleep, but he later got into his car and started driving. When he was pulled over for running a red light, he flunked a sobriety test, and a breath test at the police station showed his blood-alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit. While he admitted he was drunk, he did not admit to consciously or voluntarily driving.
When it came time for trial, his lawyer asked to put on evidence that Newman had a history of sleepwalking, which left him unable to make conscious decisions. He lined up an expert in sleep disorders to testify. But Multnomah County Circuit Judge Marshall Amiton ruled that would have no bearing, because the prosecution only had to prove that Newman was drunk and driving.
Newman waived a jury trial, and the judge found him guilty.
In ordering a new trial, the high court pointed to an Oregon law saying defendants must commit a voluntary act to be held responsible for a crime.
An earlier ruling held that determining if someone is under the influence of intoxicants does not require proof of a voluntary action, but in the court's ruling Friday, it said that doesn't apply to the issue of driving.
Read more here
No comments:
Post a Comment