Oregon Supreme Court· 5/28/1993

State v. King

Citations

852 P.2d 190
316 Or. 437
1993 Ore. LEXIS 74

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

interpreting Boots as holding that “[e]ach element of each crime must be proven to each juror beyond a reasonable doubt”
when this court interprets a statute, that interpretation becomes part of the statute as if written into it at the time of its enactment
“When [the Supreme Court] interprets a statute, the interpretation becomes a part of the statute, subject only to a revision by the legislature.”
DUII statute, ORS 813.010, is formatted in the disjunctive, permitting interpretation that enumerated variants either constitute separate crimes or are alternate theories of proving a single crime
court examined legislative history of DUII statute in order to confirm legislative intent on merger issue, because some ambiguity remained after consideration of statutory text and context
“The legislature did intend that a person could commit [the offense of DUII] by driving with the specified BAC but with no perceptible impairment or by driving with a legally permissible or unknown BAC but while nonetheless perceptibly impaired!.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.