## Facts

- An Oregon State Police officer arrested Les Lee Miller for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) on January 16, 1988.
- An Intoxilyzer test showed Miller’s blood-alcohol content was 0.12%.
- Miller offered proof that he was ill, had not eaten for nearly two days, and did not intend to drink alcohol.
- Miller’s friend prepared a “special” mint-tasting coffee drink that Miller consumed; Miller asserted he did not know it contained alcohol and learned that fact the next day.
- At trial, Miller argued due process and fairness required proof he knowingly ingested alcohol or was at least criminally negligent about becoming intoxicated.
- The trial court treated the intoxication element as strict liability and convicted Miller after a bench trial.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether ORS 813.010 requires proof of a culpable mental state regarding the element of being “under the influence of intoxicants,” or instead imposes strict liability for that element.
2. Whether lack of knowledge that one consumed alcohol is a defense to DUII under ORS 813.010.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the conviction.
- The court held that “being under the influence of an intoxicant” under ORS 813.010 is a strict-liability element.
- The state is not required to prove knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence regarding the defendant’s intoxicated condition.
- Miller’s asserted lack of awareness that his drink contained alcohol did not bar conviction.

## Legal Principles

- When an offense-defining statute is silent on mens rea, Oregon law generally implies a culpable mental state unless the legislature clearly indicates strict liability for an element.
- ORS 813.010 reflects a legislative choice to focus on the driver’s condition (intoxication/prohibited BAC) rather than subjective awareness of that condition, supporting strict liability for intoxication.
- DUII is a public-safety offense for which the legislature may, within constitutional bounds, dispense with a culpable mental state as to intoxication.
- Lack of knowledge that alcohol was consumed, or lack of awareness of intoxication, is not a defense to the intoxication element of DUII under ORS 813.010.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court upheld Miller’s DUII conviction, concluding that ORS 813.010 imposes strict liability as to the element of being under the influence of intoxicants, so the prosecution need not prove the defendant knew he ingested alcohol or knew he was intoxicated.


State v. Miller, 309 Or. 362, 788 P.2d 974 (Or. 1990)