State v. Sanchez-Cacatzun

Under Article VII (Amended), section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, an appellate court must affirm a conviction, notwithstanding any error, if there is “little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003).

Defendant appealed a conviction for driving while suspended (DWS), ORS 811.182(4)(b). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to let him argue to the jury that the language barrier prevented him from receiving adequate notice of the suspension under the statute. Defendant argued that the trial court erred by limiting the argument under ORS 811.180(1)(b), which states, an affirmative defense is available if “Defendant had not received notice of [the] suspension or revocation … of [his] driving privileges or right to apply.” Defendant was only arguing the oral information he received not the written consent form that was filled out after the arrest. In response, the State argued that the statute required actual notice and that Defendant does not have an affirmative defense if he was provided written notice. Under Article VII, section 3, of the Oregon Constitution, an appellate court must affirm a conviction, notwithstanding any error, if there is “little likelihood that the particular error affected the verdict.” State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003). The Court found that the Defendant’s argument had “no relationship to the jury’s determination of its verdict”—whether Defendant had received notice of his license suspension under the affirmative defense statute. State v. Gibson, 338 Or 560, 576, 113 P3d 423, cert den, 546 US 1044 (2005) (citations omitted). Affirmed.