Charles A. Lane v. State of Alaska, A14390

Lane was convicted of DUI and refusal to submit to a chemical test after his skiff collided with a docked boat while docking in Homer. 1
The State’s evidence showed Lane had watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, and later had a blood alcohol level of .174 percent. 2
Lane’s defense was that he drank alcohol after parking the skiff, during the eight-minute gap before the traffic stop, which allegedly explained the high test result. 3
Before closing, the prosecutor sought to bar post-driving-drinking argument for lack of evidence, but the court allowed argument and later gave the current DUI pattern instruction. 4
Lane requested a specific instruction that post-driving drinking could negate DUI guilt, but the court refused and allowed only closing argument on the theory. 5
The jury convicted Lane of DUI and refusal, and the district court’s judgment was appealed. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was a post-driving-drinking instruction required? 7	Lane had a valid statutory defense and the jury should have been instructed on it.	No instruction was needed because Lane presented no supporting evidence.	Any instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 8
Did Lane present “some evidence” of post-driving drinking? 9	The short time gap allowed an inference he drank after driving.	There was no evidence of any drinking after parking.	No; the evidence was insufficient to raise the defense. 10
Was the current pattern DUI instruction misleading in post-driving-drinking cases? 11	The instruction effectively eliminated his defense.	The instruction tracked the statute as written.	The court warned the pattern instruction should be revised for properly raised post-driving-drinking defenses. 12

Valentine v. State, 215 P.3d 319 (Alaska 2009) (held the 2004 DUI amendments eliminated delayed-absorption defense for blood-alcohol theory but not under-the-influence theory 13)
Conrad v. State, 54 P.3d 313 (Alaska App. 2002) (recognized delayed-absorption defense before the statute was amended 14)
Greenwood v. State, 237 P.3d 1018 (Alaska 2010) (explains the low “some evidence” threshold and jury-instruction rule 15)
McGee v. State, 162 P.3d 1251 (Alaska 2007) (quoted for the “some evidence” standard 16)
State v. Garrison, 171 P.3d 91 (Alaska 2007) (“some evidence” burden is not heavy and credibility issues are for the jury 17)
Nathaniel v. State, 668 P.2d 851 (Alaska App. 1983) (defendant need not testify to produce some evidence 18)
Seibold v. State, 959 P.2d 780 (Alaska App. 1998) (trial courts should err on the side of giving defense instructions 19)