State v. Carter

There must be an identifiable rule of law that was violated in order for a court to have plainly erred.

Defendant was convicted of one count of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) under ORS 813.010, and one count of reckless driving under ORS 811.140. The Defendant appealed the conviction, contending that the trial court erred by improperly providing the jury with a “Miles instruction” (UCrJI2708). Defendant argued that the Miles instructions only applied to cases of intoxication by alcohol, which she had not consumed.  Defendant additionally claimed that the “physical condition” referred to in the Miles instructions did not apply to “non-drug related physical conditions” including Defendant’s proclaimed physical conditions of illness and fatigue. In order for the court to have plainly erred, it must meet three criteria: (1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is obvious and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appears on the face of the record. The Oregon State Court of Appeals found that neither of Defendant's arguments were persuasive on plain error review because neither identified a rule of Oregon law that the trial court violated. The Court held that any doubts were merely dicta and could not be used to conclude that the trial court plainly erred. AFFIRMED.