HGN test in Maine

2017To be admissible, however, the proponent of the testimony must lay a proper foundation by establishing that “the officer or administrator of the HGN test is trained in the procedure and the test was properly administered.” Id. ¶ 12, 694 A.2d 907 . [¶ 8] Here, the State laid a proper foundation pursuant to Taylor .

2017To be admissible, however, the proponent of the testimony must lay a proper foundation by establishing that “the officer or administrator of the HGN test is trained in the procedure and the test was properly administered.” Id. ¶ 12, 694 A.2d 907 . [¶ 8] Here, the State laid a proper foundation pursuant to Taylor .

2017More recently, in State v. Hinkel, we held that the State laid a proper foundation pursuant to Taylor when the officers who administered the HGN test “testified that they graduated from the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, where they received training on the administration of field sobriety tests, including the HGN test.” 2017 ME 76 , ¶ 8, 159 A.3d 854 . [¶ 16] Here, Caldwell testified that he completed a program at the Maine Criminal Justice Academy where he received both classroom and hands-on training on field sobriety tests, including the HGN test.

2017We review an evidentiary ruling “for clear error and an abuse of discretion.” Hinkel, 2017 ME 76 , ¶ 7, 159 A.3d 854 . [¶ 15] We have taken judicial notice of the reliability of the HGN test “for purposes of establishing criminal guilt in cases involving operating under the influence,” and concluded that “the results of [an] HGN test should be admissible if a proper foundation is laid for their introduction in evidence.” State v. Taylor, 1997 ME 81, ¶¶ 10, 12 , 694 A.2d 907 .

2017See State v. Fay, 2015 ME 160, ¶ 7 , 130 A.3d 364 ; Taylor, 1997 ME 81, ¶ 13 , 694 A.2d 907 (stating that results of an HGN test are admissible as circumstantial evidence of a defendant’s intoxication). [¶ 18] Here, the jury heard testimony that Simons was speeding, had admitted to drinking earlier in the evening, had the smell of alcohol on his breath, fumbled when handling documents, stumbled when exiting his vehicle, and performed poorly on three field sobriety tests.

2017See State v. Fay, 2015 ME 160, ¶ 7 , 130 A.3d 364 ; Taylor, 1997 ME 81, ¶ 13 , 694 A.2d 907 (stating that results of an HGN test are admissible as circumstantial evidence of a defendant’s intoxication). [¶ 18] Here, the jury heard testimony that Simons was speeding, had admitted to drinking earlier in the evening, had the smell of alcohol on his breath, fumbled when handling documents, stumbled when exiting his vehicle, and performed poorly on three field sobriety tests.

2017There was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to rationally find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simons operated a vehicle while impaired, “however slightly or to any extent,” by alcohol. 5 See Atkins, 2015 ME 162, ¶ 1 , 129 A.3d 952 ; 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(D)(2); see also Hinkel, 2017 ME 76 , ¶¶ 2-5, 13, 159 A.3d 854 ; State v. Just, 2007 ME 91, ¶¶ 4, 9-10, 18 , 926 A.2d 1173 ; McCurdy, 2002 ME 66, ¶ 11 , 795 A.2d 84 .

2017There was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to rationally find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simons operated a vehicle while impaired, “however slightly or to any extent,” by alcohol. 5 See Atkins, 2015 ME 162, ¶ 1 , 129 A.3d 952 ; 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(D)(2); see also Hinkel, 2017 ME 76 , ¶¶ 2-5, 13, 159 A.3d 854 ; State v. Just, 2007 ME 91, ¶¶ 4, 9-10, 18 , 926 A.2d 1173 ; McCurdy, 2002 ME 66, ¶ 11 , 795 A.2d 84 .

2017We review an evidentiary ruling “for clear error and an abuse of discretion.” Hinkel, 2017 ME 76 , ¶ 7, 159 A.3d 854 . [¶ 15] We have taken judicial notice of the reliability of the HGN test “for purposes of establishing criminal guilt in cases involving operating under the influence,” and concluded that “the results of [an] HGN test should be admissible if a proper foundation is laid for their introduction in evidence.” State v. Taylor, 1997 ME 81, ¶¶ 10, 12 , 694 A.2d 907 .

2017More recently, in State v. Hinkel, we held that the State laid a proper foundation pursuant to Taylor when the officers who administered the HGN test “testified that they graduated from the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, where they received training on the administration of field sobriety tests, including the HGN test.” 2017 ME 76 , ¶ 8, 159 A.3d 854 . [¶ 16] Here, Caldwell testified that he completed a program at the Maine Criminal Justice Academy where he received both classroom and hands-on training on field sobriety tests, including the HGN test.

2013A. Motion to Suppress [¶ 10] “We review a denial of a motion to suppress for errors of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact.” State v. Langlois, 2005 ME 3, ¶ 6 , 863 A.2d 913 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 11] The State does not dispute the trial court’s determination that White was subject to a “seizure” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment at the point in time that Officer Pelletier asked White to submit to an HGN test.

2013A. Motion to Suppress [¶ 10] “We review a denial of a motion to suppress for errors of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact.” State v. Langlois, 2005 ME 3, ¶ 6 , 863 A.2d 913 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 11] The State does not dispute the trial court’s determination that White was subject to a “seizure” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment at the point in time that Officer Pelletier asked White to submit to an HGN test.

1997See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60, 65-66 (1995) (“The principle underlying the HGN test, i.e., that it is an accurate measure of the intoxication of a suspect, is a scientific principle.”); State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 178 (“The HGN test is a different type of test from balancing on one leg or walking a straight line because it rests almost entirely upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy rather than a basis of common knowledge).

1997See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60, 65-66 (1995) (“The principle underlying the HGN test, i.e., that it is an accurate measure of the intoxication of a suspect, is a scientific principle.”); State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 178 (“The HGN test is a different type of test from balancing on one leg or walking a straight line because it rests almost entirely upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy rather than a basis of common knowledge).

2022See State v. Simons, 2017 ME 180 , 'l[ 15, 169 A.3d 399 .

2022See State v. Simons, 2017 ME 180 , 'l[ 15, 169 A.3d 399 .

2022See State v. Simons, 2017 ME 180 , 'l[ 15, 169 A.3d 399 .

2022See State v. Simons, 2017 ME 180 , 'l[ 15, 169 A.3d 399 .

2015The Law Court expressly found that a partial HGN test administered while the driver remained seated in the car was one of the factors that 2 constituted a reasonable basis for suspicion in State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 919, 920-21 (Me. 1995).

2015The Law Court expressly found that a partial HGN test administered while the driver remained seated in the car was one of the factors that 2 constituted a reasonable basis for suspicion in State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 919, 920-21 (Me. 1995).

2013See Flint, 2011 ME 20, ¶ 9 , 12 A.3d 54 . [¶ 15] Moreover, even if before White’s formal arrest his seizure had amounted to a de facto arrest, Officer Pelletier would have had the requisite probable cause.

2013See Flint, 2011 ME 20, ¶ 9 , 12 A.3d 54 . [¶ 15] Moreover, even if before White’s formal arrest his seizure had amounted to a de facto arrest, Officer Pelletier would have had the requisite probable cause.

2010DISCUSSION Even if the court were to throw out the HGN test results and the finger dexterity test results, defendant would still fail in his argument because "[tJhe probable cause standard for requiring a person to take a blood-alcohol test has a very low threshold." State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75 , err 14, 795 A. 2d 66, 70 (citations omitted) "For there to be probable cause for OUI, an officer only needs evidence sufficient to support the reasonable belief'that the person's senses are affected to the slightest degree, or to any extent, by alcohol that the person has had to drink.'" Id. citing S

2010DISCUSSION Even if the court were to throw out the HGN test results and the finger dexterity test results, defendant would still fail in his argument because "[tJhe probable cause standard for requiring a person to take a blood-alcohol test has a very low threshold." State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75 , err 14, 795 A. 2d 66, 70 (citations omitted) "For there to be probable cause for OUI, an officer only needs evidence sufficient to support the reasonable belief'that the person's senses are affected to the slightest degree, or to any extent, by alcohol that the person has had to drink.'" Id. citing S

2007Our holding in Taylor did not suggest that the HGN test should be subject to any special comment by the court to the jury that could imply either that an HGN test was properly administered, or that the HGN test should be given any greater weight than other evidence suggesting the presence or absence of intoxication on the particular facts of the case. [¶ 16] Comment by the court on the evidence during instructions is “neither required nor appropriate in most instances.” State v. Kim, 2001 ME 99, ¶ 8 , 773 A.2d 1051, 1054 ; see State v. Edwards, 458 A.2d 422, 424-25 (Me.1983).

2007Our holding in Taylor did not suggest that the HGN test should be subject to any special comment by the court to the jury that could imply either that an HGN test was properly administered, or that the HGN test should be given any greater weight than other evidence suggesting the presence or absence of intoxication on the particular facts of the case. [¶ 16] Comment by the court on the evidence during instructions is “neither required nor appropriate in most instances.” State v. Kim, 2001 ME 99, ¶ 8 , 773 A.2d 1051, 1054 ; see State v. Edwards, 458 A.2d 422, 424-25 (Me.1983).

1997See People v. Buening, 170 Ill.Dee. at 547-48, 592 N.E.2d at 1227-28 ; Schultz v. State, 664 A.2d at 73-74 ; Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d at 769 . [¶ 14] Thus, the admission in this case of Officer Green’s testimony relating to particular blood alcohol levels was error.

1997See People v. Buening, 170 Ill.Dee. at 547-48, 592 N.E.2d at 1227-28 ; Schultz v. State, 664 A.2d at 73-74 ; Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d at 769 . [¶ 14] Thus, the admission in this case of Officer Green’s testimony relating to particular blood alcohol levels was error.

1997See Schultz v. State, 106 Md.App. 145 , 664 A.2d 60, 65-66 (1995) (“The principle underlying the HGN test, i.e., that it is an accurate measure of the intoxication of a suspect, is a scientific principle.”); State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d at 178 (“The HGN test is a different type of test from balancing on one leg or walking a straight line because it rests almost entirely upon an assertion of scientific legitimacy rather than a basis of common knowledge).

1997The State directed the court’s attention to State v. Superior Court, 718 P.2d 171 (Ariz.1986) (en banc), and the scientific evidence cited in that case, to show the reliability of the HGN test.