Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 16 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. O'Keygreen2 sentences2025See State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 319 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (determining the scientific proposition underlying that test—that alcohol consumption causes nystagmus—is valid). 388 State v. Redman On the walk-and-turn test, Simpson observed four out of eight “validated clues.” Simpson testified that defen- dant “didn’t take heel-to-toe steps. 2025See State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 319 , 899 P2d 663 (1995) (determining the scientific proposition underlying that test—that alcohol consumption causes nystagmus—is valid). 388 State v. Redman On the walk-and-turn test, Simpson observed four out of eight “validated clues.” Simpson testified that defen- dant “didn’t take heel-to-toe steps. | 2 | 7 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2025In that case, the officer stopped the defendant because his temporary registration was not displayed correctly; the defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes; the defendant denied that he had been drink- ing; his BAC was well below the legal limit; a test indicat- ing the presence of marijuana and methamphetamine in the defendant’s system did not indicate how recently the defen- dant had used those substances before driving; and, based on the body cam footage, the jury “would not necessarily have viewed [the] defendant’s performance on the walk-and- turn test * * * as particularly bad.” Id. at 823- 2025In that case, the officer stopped the defendant because his temporary registration was not displayed correctly; the defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes; the defendant denied that he had been drink- ing; his BAC was well below the legal limit; a test indicat- ing the presence of marijuana and methamphetamine in the defendant’s system did not indicate how recently the defen- dant had used those substances before driving; and, based on the body cam footage, the jury “would not necessarily have viewed [the] defendant’s performance on the walk-and- turn test * * * as particularly bad.” Id. at 823- | 2 | 7 |
State v. Beltran-Chavezgreen2 sentences2024Id. at 614 .3 However, we went on to conclude that “a jury would perceive the proposition underlying the testimony that a defendant ‘failed’ the walk-and-turn test or the one-leg- stand test as scientific.” Id. 2024Id. at 614 .3 However, we went on to conclude that “a jury would perceive the proposition underlying the testimony that a defendant ‘failed’ the walk-and-turn test or the one-leg- stand test as scientific.” Id. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Inmangreen2 sentences2025Based on those circumstances, where “the other evidence of impaired driving * * * was not strong,” we concluded that “the officer’s testimony * * * likely had a significant impact on the jury’s Cite as 342 Or App 509 (2025) 513 verdict * * * [and] the error in admitting that testimony was sufficiently grave such that the ends of justice support rever- sal.” Id. at 824 ; see State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 933-34 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (whether the record includes additional evidence of a defendant’s guilt is a factor that we have considered in declining to exercise ou 2025Based on those circumstances, where “the other evidence of impaired driving * * * was not strong,” we concluded that “the officer’s testimony * * * likely had a significant impact on the jury’s Cite as 342 Or App 509 (2025) 513 verdict * * * [and] the error in admitting that testimony was sufficiently grave such that the ends of justice support rever- sal.” Id. at 824 ; see State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 933-34 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (whether the record includes additional evidence of a defendant’s guilt is a factor that we have considered in declining to exercise ou | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mazzolagreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Mazzola, 356 Or 804, 818 , 345 P3d 424 (2015) (explaining that psychomotor FSTs “test balance and divided attention, or the ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2024See, e.g., State v. Mazzola, 356 Or 804, 818 , 345 P3d 424 (2015) (explaining that psychomotor FSTs “test balance and divided attention, or the ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ortizgreen2 sentences2023First, she argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “five out of eight clues on the walk-and-turn test was consistent with being unsafe to drive, driving erratically, exhibiting mood swings, having an odor of alcohol and watery eyes, and was inconsistent with being sober.” Second, defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “the FSTs were scientifically validated.” The majority focuses on the second assignment of error. 325 Or App at 137 . 2023First, she argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “five out of eight clues on the walk-and-turn test was consistent with being unsafe to drive, driving erratically, exhibiting mood swings, having an odor of alcohol and watery eyes, and was inconsistent with being sober.” Second, defendant argues that the trial court improperly admitted the officer’s testimony that “the FSTs were scientifically validated.” The majority focuses on the second assignment of error. 325 Or App at 137. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Mellogreen2 sentences2025By not objecting to, but rather confirming on cross-examination the testi- mony establishing thresholds for impairment on the walk- and-turn test and the modified Romberg test, she could use that same methodology to demonstrate that, based on the number of clues exhibited, she did not meet the require- ments for impairment on other FSTs.3 And defendant made that exact argument on cross-examination and in closing, arguing that she “passed” certain FSTs.4 We have explained that if a defendant herself characterizes FSTs as being sci- entific, “it is reasonable to infer that defendant had a stra- 2025Like in Mello, 332 Or App at 223 , if defendant had objected to the trooper’s testimony about numerical cut-offs on the walk-and-turn test and the one- leg-stand test and defendant’s score on those tests, then the trial court could have easily corrected the error by striking the testimony and instructing the jury to disregard it. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Redmangreen2 sentences2025State v. Hall, 336 Or App 812, 819-20 , 562 P3d 284 (2024), rev den, 373 Or 712 (2025); see also State v. Redman, 338 Or App 384, 385 , 566 P3d 5 (2025) (affirming that permitting such testimony is plain error); State v. Curtis, 342 Or App 509, 510 , 577 P3d 327 (2025) (same). 2025Defendant emphasized that the trooper’s training manual provided that he should give alternative tests if unusual conditions apply, that the rules or standards articulated in the training manual were not Cite as 338 Or App 384 (2025) 391 discretionary, and defendant argued that the trooper should not have administered the walk-and-turn test or the one- leg-stand test. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Marringtongreen2 sentences2017Nonetheless, the majority asserts that the jury would have understood Duenas’s testimony that defendant failed the walk-and-turn test to be based on “application of the scientific method” because “there is no reasonable way for the expert to have derived the assertion other than through ‘application of a scientific method to collect data.’” Id. at 614 (quoting State v. Marrington, 335 Or 555, 564 , 73 P3d 911 (2003)). 2017Nonetheless, the majority asserts that the jury would have understood Duenas’s testimony that defendant failed the walk-and-turn test to be based on “application of the scientific method” because “there is no reasonable way for the expert to have derived the assertion other than through ‘application of a scientific method to collect data.’” Id. at 614 (quoting State v. Marrington, 335 Or 555, 564 , 73 P3d 911 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitmoregreen1 sentence2017See Whitmore, 257 Or App at 672-73 (one consideration in harmlessness analysis is “whether the finder of fact would have regarded the evidence as duplicative, cumulative, or unhelpful in its deliberations”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1995See State v. Clark, 286 Or 33, 39-40 , 593 P2d 123 (1979) (taking judicial notice of a list of commonly known “observable symptoms or ‘signs’ of alcohol intoxication,” which does not include the nystagmus phenomenon). 12 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that HGN test evidence is “scientific” evidence. 1995See State v. Clark, 286 Or 33, 39-40 , 593 P2d 123 (1979) (taking judicial notice of a list of commonly known “observable symptoms or ‘signs’ of alcohol intoxication,” which does not include the nystagmus phenomenon). 12 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that HGN test evidence is “scientific” evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Curtis
green
2 sentences2025Based on those circumstances, where “the other evidence of impaired driving * * * was not strong,” we concluded that “the officer’s testimony * * * likely had a significant impact on the jury’s Cite as 342 Or App 509 (2025) 513 verdict * * * [and] the error in admitting that testimony was sufficiently grave such that the ends of justice support rever- sal.” Id. at 824 ; see State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 933-34 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (whether the record includes additional evidence of a defendant’s guilt is a factor that we have considered in declining to exercise ou 2025Based on those circumstances, where “the other evidence of impaired driving * * * was not strong,” we concluded that “the officer’s testimony * * * likely had a significant impact on the jury’s Cite as 342 Or App 509 (2025) 513 verdict * * * [and] the error in admitting that testimony was sufficiently grave such that the ends of justice support rever- sal.” Id. at 824 ; see State v. Inman, 275 Or App 920, 933-34 , 366 P3d 721 (2015), rev den, 359 Or 525 (2016) (whether the record includes additional evidence of a defendant’s guilt is a factor that we have considered in declining to exercise ou | 3 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Curtis
neutral
2 sentences2025ANALYSIS As discussed above, in Curtis I, we concluded that the trial court plainly erred in failing to strike Emerson’s testimony that the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand test are standardized national tests, that a person exhib- iting at least two “clues” on either test indicates that they are intoxicated, and that defendant exhibited two or more clues on each test. 333 Or App at 529 . 2025ANALYSIS As discussed above, in Curtis I, we concluded that the trial court plainly erred in failing to strike Emerson’s testimony that the walk-and-turn test and the one-leg-stand test are standardized national tests, that a person exhib- iting at least two “clues” on either test indicates that they are intoxicated, and that defendant exhibited two or more clues on each test. 333 Or App at 529 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ortiz
green
2 sentences2025Ortiz II, 372 Or at 660 n 1. 2025Id. at 671 .3 It remanded to us to determine again 1 As the Supreme Court noted, the FSTs at issue here were the walk-and- turn test and the one-leg-stand test. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Bazan-Martinez
neutral
2 sentences2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 91 (2025) 93 the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand. 2025Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 91 (2025) 93 the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg stand. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Henley
green
2 sentences2024I would heed that warning here because it is well-settled that “[t]he one-leg stand test [and] the walk-and-turn test * * * are not scientific evidence, Cite as 336 Or App 812 (2024) 827 because they ‘obtain their legitimacy from effects of intoxi- cation based on propositions of common knowledge’ and not from scientific principles.” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 298 , 422 P3d 217 (2018) (quoting State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 297 , 899 P2d 663 (1995)). 2024I would heed that warning here because it is well-settled that “[t]he one-leg stand test [and] the walk-and-turn test * * * are not scientific evidence, Cite as 336 Or App 812 (2024) 827 because they ‘obtain their legitimacy from effects of intoxi- cation based on propositions of common knowledge’ and not from scientific principles.” State v. Henley, 363 Or 284, 298 , 422 P3d 217 (2018) (quoting State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 297 , 899 P2d 663 (1995)). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Reid
green
2 sentences2024But, in Reid, 312 Or App at 543-44 , we held that it was obvious that testimony about passing or failing the walk-and-turn test was scientific evidence. 2024But, in Reid, 312 Or App at 543-44 , we held that it was obvious that testimony about passing or failing the walk-and-turn test was scientific evidence. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2017According to the majority, Duenas’s testimony that defendant failed the walk-and-turn test is “scientific evidence” for which a foundation had to be laid under State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 , 899 P2d 663 (1995). 2017According to the majority, Duenas’s testimony that defendant failed the walk-and-turn test is “scientific evidence” for which a foundation had to be laid under State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984), and State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285 , 899 P2d 663 (1995). | 2 | 1995–2017 |
cluster 10846699
neutral
1 sentence2026Cite as 348 Or App 602 (2026) 605 “The tests will include the HGN test, the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg stand test, and any other test I will be willing to—I will be asking you to perform. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Wiltse
green
1 sentence2025We also conclude that there was no plain error when the trial court permitted the trooper to refer to the clues on the walk-and- turn test as “validated.” As noted earlier, among the requirements for an alleged error to be considered plain is that the error appears on the record, which means that “the appellate court must not need to go outside the record to identify the error or choose between competing inferences, and the facts consti- tuting the error must be irrefutable.” State v. Wiltse, 373 Or 1, 3 , 559 P3d 380 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ulery
green
2 sentences2021Defendant also raises five supplemental assignments of error challenging nonunanimous verdicts for Counts 2, 4, and 5, which are con- trolled by State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020). 2021Defendant also raises five supplemental assignments of error challenging nonunanimous verdicts for Counts 2, 4, and 5, which are con- trolled by State v. Ulery, 366 Or 500 , 464 P3d 1123 (2020). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Miles
green
2 sentences2019Based on his observations of defendant and defendant’s performance 1 Defendant was also convicted of possession of a controlled substance. 2 See State v. Miles, 8 Or App 189 , 492 P2d 497 (1972); UCrJI 2708. 500 State v. Basham during the FSTs, Elliot believed that defendant “was under the influence of an intoxicant and that he was impaired.” During the stop, Elliot also discovered that defendant was wearing a Fentanyl patch and that there were prescription pill bottles for hydrocodone-acetaminophen and oxycodone- acetaminophen in his car. 2019Based on his observations of defendant and defendant’s performance 1 Defendant was also convicted of possession of a controlled substance. 2 See State v. Miles, 8 Or App 189 , 492 P2d 497 (1972); UCrJI 2708. 500 State v. Basham during the FSTs, Elliot believed that defendant “was under the influence of an intoxicant and that he was impaired.” During the stop, Elliot also discovered that defendant was wearing a Fentanyl patch and that there were prescription pill bottles for hydrocodone-acetaminophen and oxycodone- acetaminophen in his car. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Spicer
green
2 sentences1997Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with State v. Spicer, 147 Or App 418 , 936 P2d 1005 (1997). 1997Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with State v. Spicer, 147 Or App 418 , 936 P2d 1005 (1997). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Nielsen
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 306-07 . 6 Under that rationale, the trial court in this case erroneously characterized the physical aspects of the field sobriety tests as testimonial. 7 Accordingly, the court should have admitted evidence of defendant walking heel-to-toe, using his arms for balance and turning incorrectly in the walk-and-turn test, of his swaying during the Romberg test and of the manner in which he touched his thumb to his fingers in the finger-count test. 8 Also, evidence of the HGN test is admissible in its entirety; it is a purely physical test, the deputy did not request a verbal response and no | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Department of Human Resources
green
2 sentences1995Id. 1995Id. [6] Whether field sobriety tests are testimonial presents a difficult issue concerning the boundary between "testimonial" and "non-testimonial" evidence. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Fish
green
1 sentence1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Plemel v. Walter
green
2 sentences1995The order of the district court is reversed. 1 ORS 801.272 provides: “ ‘Field sobriety test’ means a physical or mental test, approved by the Department of State Police by rule after consultation with the Board on Public Safety Standards and Training, that enables a police officer or trier of fact to screen for or detect probable impairment from intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance.” 2 The field sobriety tests described in OAR 257-25-020(1) include the HGN test, the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg stand test, the Romber 1995The order of the district court is reversed. 1 ORS 801.272 provides: “ ‘Field sobriety test’ means a physical or mental test, approved by the Department of State Police by rule after consultation with the Board on Public Safety Standards and Training, that enables a police officer or trier of fact to screen for or detect probable impairment from intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance, or a combination of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance.” 2 The field sobriety tests described in OAR 257-25-020(1) include the HGN test, the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg stand test, the Romber | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.