State v. Clark

I respectfully submit that the majority’s reasoning is fallacious and renders ORS 487.540(l)(a), driving with a blood-alcohol content of .10 percent or more as measured by chemical analysis, a wholly superfluous statutory provision.

A juror made the following request of the trial court:

"Even though the law states that .10 means a person is 'under the influence’ does this require a juror to go ahead and pronounce the Defendant guilty. Can the breathalyzer say .10 or over and still I could come back with a verdict of not guilty?! just would like to have the law explained to me again so that it…