Oregon Supreme Court Establishes Admissibility Limits for Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test in DUII Cases

Introduction

In the landmark case of State of Oregon v. Albert R. O'Key, decided on July 7, 1995, the Oregon Supreme Court addressed the contentious issue of admissibility of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test in prosecutions for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 813.010. The petitioner, Albert R. O'Key, challenged the use of HGN test evidence, arguing that it did not meet the standards for admissibility of scientific evidence as established in prior Oregon case law. The respondent, the State of Oregon, defended the HGN test's reliability and its role in establishing probable impairment by intoxication. The court's decision has significant implications for the use of scientific evidence in DUII cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the prior decisions of the Court of Appeals and the district court regarding the admissibility of HGN test evidence. The court concluded that:

The HGN test is admissible to establish that a defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
The HGN test is not admissible to prove that a defendant had a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of .08 percent or more.
Admissibility of the HGN test is contingent upon a foundational showing that the administering officer was properly qualified, the test was administered correctly, and the results were accurately recorded.

Consequently, the court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision that allowed HGN evidence for indicating intoxication but overturned the district court's exclusion of such evidence for establishing the statutory BAC threshold.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior Oregon case law to frame the admissibility standards for scientific evidence:

STATE v. BROWN (1984): Established that scientific evidence must meet specific admissibility standards under the Oregon Evidence Code.
STATE v. MILBRADT (1988): Confirmed that psychological syndrome evidence is a form of scientific evidence requiring foundational proof.
PLEMEL v. WALTER (1987): Applied the Brown standard in a civil context, emphasizing the balance between probative value and potential for misleading the trier of fact.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993): Influenced the court's approach to scientific evidence by outlining a flexible, multifactor test beyond the traditional Frye "general acceptance" standard.
FRYE v. UNITED STATES (1923): Historically required scientific evidence to gain general acceptance in its field, though later supplanted by Daubert in federal courts.
STATE v. CLARK (1979): Distinguished HGN from other field sobriety tests based on common knowledge.

Additionally, the court considered decisions from other jurisdictions, such as STATE v. SUPERIOR COURT (Arizona) and STATE v. WITTE (Kansas), to evaluate the broader acceptance and reliability of the HGN test within the scientific community.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on determining whether the HGN test qualifies as "scientific evidence" under Oregon law and, if so, whether it meets the requisite standards for admissibility. Key points include:

Scientific Validity: The HGN test must be based on scientifically valid principles. The court examined the correlation between alcohol consumption and nystagmus, the methodology of the test, and its empirical support from studies conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Admissibility Standards: Utilizing the multifactor approach from Daubert and Brown, the court assessed factors such as the test's acceptability in the scientific community, the potential rate of error, peer review, and the qualifications of the administering officers.
Purpose of Evidence: Differentiated between using HGN to establish general intoxication versus quantifying BAC, concluding that while it can support a finding of intoxication, it does not provide a direct measure of BAC as required by ORS 813.010 (1)(a).
Balancing Probative Value and Prejudice: Under OEC 403, the court weighed the evidence's probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice, ultimately finding that the benefits of admitting HGN evidence to indicate intoxication outweighed potential drawbacks.

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts DUII prosecutions in Oregon by:

Defining Admissibility: Clarifying that HGN can be used to indicate intoxication but not to establish a specific BAC level, thus limiting its role in legal proceedings.
Setting Precedent: Establishing a clear standard for scientific evidence admissibility in Oregon, aligning state law more closely with the federal Daubert standard.
Guiding Future Cases: Providing a framework for courts to evaluate other scientific or technical evidence, promoting consistency and reliability in judicial decisions.
Training and Standards: Emphasizing the need for proper training and adherence to standardized procedures in administering field sobriety tests, indirectly influencing law enforcement practices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) Test: A field sobriety test used by law enforcement to detect alcohol impairment by observing the involuntary jerking of the eyes when tracking a moving object. It evaluates three criteria: angle of onset, maximum deviation, and smooth pursuit of the eyes.

Scientific Evidence: Evidence that derives its persuasive force from scientific principles, requiring validation through empirical research and acceptance within the scientific community.

Oregon Evidence Code (OEC) 401, 402, 403:

OEC 401: Defines relevant evidence as having any tendency to make a fact more or less probable.
OEC 402: All relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by specific statutes, constitutions, or rules.
OEC 403: Relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks such as unfair prejudice or confusion.

Daubert Standard: A legal standard from the federal case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony based on scientific validity and relevance.

Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court's decision in State of Oregon v. Albert R. O'Key marks a pivotal moment in the state's handling of scientific evidence within DUII prosecutions. By affirming the admissibility of the HGN test to establish intoxication while restricting its use to determine specific BAC levels, the court has delineated clear boundaries for law enforcement and legal practitioners. This ruling not only aligns Oregon with broader judicial standards for scientific evidence but also safeguards the integrity of the judicial process by ensuring that only reliable and relevant scientific evidence influences verdicts. Consequently, this decision enhances the fairness of DUII trials and reinforces the importance of rigorous scientific validation in legal proceedings.