State v. Hedgpeth

Common knowledge that a person's blood alcohol content dissipates over time is, without additional evidence, is insufficient to prove that at a specific point in time, a person's alcohol level was above, below, or the same as it was later recorded to be. State v. Miller, 289 Or App 353, 359, P3d (2017).

Defendant appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that his blood alcohol content (BAC) was above the legal limit while driving because the blood alcohol test was taken one hour and forty-five minutes after the initial stop. In response, the State argued that prior case law permits the court to infer, based on the common knowledge that BAC levels decrease over time- therefore it would be reasonable to assume that Defendant’s BAC level was higher while driving. Common knowledge that a person's blood alcohol content dissipates over time is, without additional evidence, is insufficient to prove that at a specific point in time, a person's alcohol level was above, below, or the same as it was later recorded to be. State v. Miller, 289 Or App 353, 359, P3d (2017) The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the assumption that a person’s BAC declines over time does not alone support the inference that at the time Defendant was driving, his BAC was “higher, lower, or the same” as when his BAC measured .09 percent one hour and forty-five minutes later. Reversed.