State v. Thomas

ORS 813.131(5)(b) provides: “A chemical analysis of a person’s urine is valid if analysis is performed in an accredited or licensed toxicology laboratory.” “So long as the jury is correctly instructed that a finding of guilty cannot be made on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot be error to also instruct them that they may use their powers to reason and common sense, and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” State v. Hines, 84 Or App 681 (1987).

Defendant appealed a conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). Defendant assigned error to the trial court's admission of Defendant's urinalysis (UA) without proper foundation, arguing that it abused its descretion. The State responded, arguing that the legislature made UAs conducted by specified laboratories admissible in civil and criminal proceedings to determine whether a person was driving under the influence. ORS 813.131(5)(b) provides: “A chemical analysis of a person’s urine is valid if analysis is performed in an accredited or licensed toxicology laboratory.” The Court agreed with the State and found that the plain language in the statute rendered UAs performed in an accredited laboratory admissible. Further, because there was no dispute as to the accredidation of the laboratory which performed Defendant's UA, the UA was categorically admissible.

Defendant raised additional assignments of error to the trial court's rejection of Defendant's proposed special jury instruction and use of Uniform Criminal Jury Instruction (UCrJI) 1008 regarding inferences, arguing that UCrJI 1008 lessened the burden of proof. “So long as the jury is correctly instructed that a finding of guilty cannot be made on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it cannot be error to also instruct them that they may use their powers to reason and common sense, and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.” State v. Hines, 84 Or App 681 (1987). The Court determined that the trial court's instruction adequately directed the jury to the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement. Affirmed.