State v. Hedgpeth

"[F]acts in issue can 'be established by reasonable inferences, but not through speculation.'" State v. Jesse, 360 Or 584, 597 P3d 1063 (2016).

The State appealed a court's finding that the State's "evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Defendant drove with a BAC of at least .08 percent."  The State assigned error to the court's conclusion that "'common knowledge' is not enough . . . to supply the 'something more' that is 'necessary to connect the breath test result to the statutory requirement of a BAC of .08 percent or more at the time of driving.'"  On appeal, the State argued that the trial court made a reasonable inference that Defendant had a BAC of at least .08 at the time he was driving.  In response, Defendant argued that "'reasonable inference' requires more precision' and should be 'limited to those that follow "necessarily" from the established facts'" or through logical syllogism.  "[F]acts in issue can 'be established by reasonable inferences, but not through speculation.'" State v. Jesse, 360 Or 584, 597 P3d 1063 (2016).  The Court held that "some effects of alcohol consumption are beyond the realm of common knowledge" and that "the general proposition that blood alcohol concentrations fall over time is too general to permit any reasonable inference about defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time that he drove." Therefore, absent other evidence, common knowledge of generic propositions that alcohol dissipates over time is not sufficient to constitute the required "'[s]omething more' that . . . is necessary to connect BAC test results to Defendant's blood alcohol concentration when he was driving approximately two hours earlier."  The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.  The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.