Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Miller

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 1990No. DC 880117M; CA A48812; SC S36077Published

1DissentFadele Y, J.

I join in the dissent of Carson, J., other than part I.B.2.1 join that dissent because in the circumstances of this case he correctly answers the governing question: Did the legislature “clearly indicate” an intention to dispense with all reasoned defenses to a DUII charge when the only indicator of legislative intent is legislative silence? As Berry v. Branner, 245 Or 307, 311, 421 P2d 996 (1966), states: “Legislative inaction is a weak reed upon which to lean in determining legislative intent.” The criminal code interpretive guidelines still strongly favor culpability as a necessary element…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Berry v. BrannerOregon Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Mitchell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. MaguireCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  5. State v. MaguireOregon Supreme Court · 1987

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API