STATE v. PARKS, 203 Or. App. 110 (2005)

125 P.3d 31

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT DAVID PARKS, Appellant.

040732MI, 040833MI; A125296 (Control), A125297 (Cases Consolidated).Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted November 3, 2005.
Affirmed December 7, 2005.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County.

J.E. Ferris, Judge pro tempore.

Peter Carini argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

Page 111

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of two counts of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). ORS 813.010. On appeal, he assigns error to the admission into evidence of certifications of the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer machine that produced the test result that was also admitted into evidence. He first argues that the certifications were not relevant, and, therefore, under OEC 402, they were inadmissible. We reject that argument under State v. Mattila, 52 Or App 743, 629 P2d 845 (1981).

Defendant also argues that the admission of the documents without the opportunity to cross-examine the technicians who prepared them violated his right to confront witnesses under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution[1] and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2]
We rejected similar arguments in State v. William, 199 Or App 191, 193-97, 110 P3d 1114, rev den, 339 Or 406 (2005), an State v. Norman, 203 Or App 1, 4, 125 P3d 15 (2005).

Affirmed.

[1] Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides, in part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right * * * to meet the witnesses face to face.”

[2] The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

Page 112

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 125 P.3d 31

Recent Posts

STATE v. MCCARTHY, 501 P.3d 478 (2021)

501 P.3d 478 (2021)369 Or. 129 STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Charles Steven…

8 months ago

STATE EX REL. S.M. v. A.S., 196 P.3d 26 (2008)

044230S0; A134887. 196 P.3d 26 (2008) 223 Or. App. 421 STATE of Oregon ex rel.…

7 years ago

STATE v. McNALLY, 361 Or. 314 (2017)

April 20, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Respondent…

9 years ago

STATE v. HAUGEN, 361 Or. 284 (2017)

March 30, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON,…

9 years ago

IN THE MATTER OF BROWN, 361 Or. 241 (2017)

361 Or. 241 In the Matter of the Compensation of Royce L. Brown, Sr., Claimant.…

9 years ago

IN RE ROLLER, 361 Or 234 (2017)

234                                  March 9, 2017                              No. 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE…

9 years ago