MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2016 ME 67 Docket: Pen

- 15

- 232 Submitted

On B riefs : April 21, 2016 Decided: May 5, 2016 Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

STATE OF MAINE

v. ERICA J. WALLACE PARKIN

ALEXANDER, J. [¶1] Erica J. Wallace Parkin appeals from a judgmen t of conviction for criminal operating under the influence (OUI) , with one prior conviction (Class D),
29

- A M.R.S. § 2411(1

- A)(B)(1) (2015) , entered in the Unified Criminal Docket (Penobscot County, Campbell, J. ) following a jury trial. Because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find each element of OUI proved beyond a reasonable doubt , we affirm the j udgment

. See 29

- A M.R.S. § 2411(1

- A)(B)(1); State v. Reed , 2013 ME 5, ¶ 9, 58 A.3d 1130.
I. CASE HISTORY [¶2 ] Parkin was in a car that collided with a parked car in front of a home in
Brewer in October 2014 . A resi dent of the home heard the sound of th e collision2 and immediately ran outside . The resident saw that a car had crashed into his car, which was parked near the street, and had pushed his car about ten to fifteen feet onto the lawn. The resident saw Parkin get out of the driver’s seat of the c ar and a

man get out of the passenger seat. [¶3 ] Parkin told the resident that a third person had been driving her car and had fled into the woods. The resident did not see anyone else in the area , despite being outside almost immediately after the cras h. The resident be lieved Parkin was intoxicated. [¶4 ] When police arrived, Parkin told a Brewer Police Detectiv e that a hitchhiker had been driving the car and that she and her husband were giving him a ride from Frankfort to Bangor. Based on the locat ion of the crash and the direction they were heading at the time of the crash, the Parkins had already passed Bangor

. Accordingly, the detective did not believe Parkin’s story . The detective believed Parkin was intoxicated based on the fact that she w as loud, was interrupting others , had slurred speech and exaggerated moveme nts, and smelled of alcohol. [¶5 ] A second Br ewer Police Officer , also at the scene, believed Parkin was intoxicated because her eyes were bloodshot and glassy , and her speech was sl urred. A third Brewer Po lice Officer at the scene believed Parkin was intoxicated for the same reasons and performed field sobriety tests. Parkin was unable to complete the horizontal gaze nystagmus test because she was unable to keep her3 head still, and she failed both the walk

- and

- turn test and the one

- leg

- stand test. Parkin told the officers that she drank one

- and

- a - half hard lemonades, but an officer believed her level of intoxication indicated that s he had consumed more
. [¶6 ] Parkin was brought to the Brewer Police Station at around 11 p.m. After about thirty minutes , Parkin was able to provide a sufficient sample for an intoxilyzer test. Parkin’s blood alcohol level at that time

— about two

- and

- a - half hours after the crash

— tested at .06. [¶7 ] Pa rkin stipulated to a prior conviction for OUI in October 2012. After

a one - day jury trial on April 24, 2015, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced Parkin to forty

- five days in jail, a $700 fine, and a three

- year license suspension. Par kin then brought this appeal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of OUI.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS [¶8 ] Contrary to Parkin’s argument, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to permit a reasonable ju ry to find each element of OUI beyond a reasonable doubt. See 29

- A M.R.S. § 2411(1

- A)(B)(1); Reed , 2013 ME 5, ¶ 9, 58 A.3d 1130. [¶9 ] We note particularly the evidence that Parkin’s blood alcohol level was .06

. When the evidence indicates that a defenda nt’ s blood alcohol level was more than .05 but less than .08, the jury may consider it as relevant evidence, along with4 all of the other evidence presented, in deciding whether the defendant was intoxicated

. 29

- A M.R.S. § 2432(2) (2015)

. 1 The jury was ap propriately instructed on this point

. The evidence of the .06 test, combined with the other evidence , fully supports the conviction. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

On the briefs: Christopher D. Smith, Esq., Law Office of Christopher D. Smith, E sq., Dexter, for appellant Erica J. Wallace Parkin R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, and Susan J. Pope, Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellee State of Maine

Penobscot County Unified Criminal Docket docket number CR

- 2014

- 3971 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY

1 29

- A M.R.S. § 2432 (2015) states, in pertinent part: 1

. Lev el less than 0.05 grams. If a person has an alcohol level of 0.05 grams or less of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath, it is prima facie evidence that that person is not under the influence of alcohol.
2

. Level greater than 0.05 grams and less than 0.08 grams. If a person has an alcohol level in excess of 0.05 grams of alcohol but less than 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath, it is admissible evidence, but not prima facie, indicating whethe r or not that person is under the influence of intoxicants to be considered with other competent evidence

. . . . 3

. Level of 0.08 grams or greater. In proceedings other than under section 2411, a person is presumed to be under the influence of intoxicant s if that person has an alcohol level of 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath.