State v. Ramirez

Under ORS 809.235(1)(b), an out-of-state conviction “cannot serve as a predicate offense unless the offense requires proof that the person’s impaired driving was causally related to the person’s use of an intoxicant.”

Defendant appealed a conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. Trial court permanently revoked defendant’s license as he had two earlier out of state convictions; at issue in this case is a first-degree negligent driving conviction from Washington. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s finding that the convictions qualified under ORS 809.235(1)(b)(B). Defendant argued that the “first-degree negligent driving statute does not qualify as a statutory counterpart to Oregon’s DUII statute.” State contended that it is irrelevant whether or not the conviction is “statutory counterpart” as it qualifies because the activity being criminalized in Washington is “substantial similar” to a DUII conviction in Oregon.  Under ORS 809.235(1)(b), an out-of-state conviction “cannot serve as a predicate offense unless the offense requires proof that the person’s impaired driving was causally related to the person’s use of an intoxicant.” The court found that ORS 809.235(1)(b)(B) encompasses out-of-state offenses “only to the degree that those offenses require proof that a person * * * was impaired by the person’s use of intoxicants.”  But RCW 46.61.5249(1)(a) criminalizes driving dangerously while “exhibit[ing] the effects of having consumed liquor or marijuana or any drug.”  That is, first-degree negligent driving does not require proof that the person’s impaired driving was “causally related to the person’s use of an intoxicant.” Accordingly, the court held that trial court erred in relying on the Washington offense to permanently revoke Petitioner’s driving privileges. Remanded for sentencing; otherwise affirmed.