Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LES LEE MILLER, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-03-01
Citations: 95 Or. App. 439
Docket Number: 880117M; CA A48812
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LES LEE MILLER, Appellant
Judges: Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 95
Pages: 439–440

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 21,1988,
affirmed March 1,
reconsideration denied April 21, petition for review allowed May 16,1989 (308 Or 33)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LES LEE MILLER, Appellant
(880117M; CA A48812)
769 P2d 788
Henry M. Silberblatt, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) case, defendant argues that he should have been allowed to assert the defense of involuntary intoxication. He asks us to reconsider our opinion in State v. Maguire, 78 Or App 459, 717 P2d 226 (1986), affirmed without opinion by an equally divided court, 303 Or 368, 736 P2d 193 (1987), in which we held that DUII is a strict liability offense. We decline to do so. See State v. Bunch, 87 Or App 386, 387, 742 P2d 74 (1987).
Affirmed.