## Facts

- James Robert Newman drank alcohol at dinner, left his car near his apartment, was driven home by friends, and went to sleep.
- Later that night, an officer observed Newman commit traffic violations, stopped him, and noted signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech).
- Newman failed field sobriety tests, was arrested, and a breath test showed a 0.15% blood alcohol content.
- Newman sought to introduce expert and other evidence that he had a sleepwalking disorder (parasomnia) and was “sleep driving,” arguing he did not voluntarily drive.
- The trial court excluded the sleepwalking evidence as irrelevant, reasoning DUII is strict liability and voluntariness was not at issue; Newman was convicted of felony DUII.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same irrelevance rationale.

## Issues

1. Whether Oregon’s statutory requirement of a voluntary act for criminal liability applies to the “driving” element of DUII under ORS 813.010 despite DUII’s characterization as strict liability.
2. Whether evidence that the defendant was “sleep driving” due to a sleepwalking disorder is relevant and admissible to contest that the defendant voluntarily drove.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the proffered sleepwalking evidence was relevant to the “driving” element of DUII because Oregon law requires proof of a voluntary act as a prerequisite to criminal liability.
- The trial court erred by excluding the evidence as irrelevant based solely on DUII’s strict-liability status.

## Legal Principles

- Oregon criminal liability generally requires proof of a voluntary act under ORS 161.095, separate from any requirement of a culpable mental state.
- Describing an offense as “strict liability” addresses mens rea requirements; it does not eliminate the statutory voluntary-act requirement for the defendant’s conduct.
- Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable; sleepwalking evidence can tend to show conduct was unconscious or automatic and therefore not voluntary.
- The state bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the prohibited conduct as a voluntary act; sleepwalking evidence may be used to contest that proof rather than as an affirmative defense.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that, even in DUII prosecutions treated as strict liability, the state must prove the defendant’s act of driving was voluntary; evidence that the defendant was sleep driving due to sleepwalking is relevant to that element and should not be excluded as irrelevant.


State v. Newman, 353 Or. 632 (Or. 2013)