State of New Hampshire v. Alex Ducharme
167 N.H. 606
| N.H. | 2015Background
- At ~midnight a bouncer at Rednecks Bar observed Ducharme drive into the parking lot, exit the driver’s side, and engage in an altercation; the bouncer smelled alcohol on him and reported seeing him drive.
- An Antrim officer arrived, escorted Ducharme to the cruiser to separate him, and observed bloodshot eyes, alcohol odor, and balance problems; another fight led to a handcuffed detention and arrest for simple assault.
- After arrest but before transport, the officer learned from the bouncer that Ducharme had driven into the lot; the officer then read the ALS (implied consent) form, which begins “You have been arrested for an offense arising out of acts alleged to have been committed while you were driving under the influence.”
- Ducharme invoked Miranda and said he did not wish to speak without a lawyer; the officer nonetheless explained the ALS form, Ducharme ultimately initialed and signed, said he was drunk, failed field sobriety tests, and registered .17 on a breath test.
- At bench trial Ducharme contested probable cause, application of the implied consent statute, admission of evidence post-Miranda (invoking the "confusion doctrine"), and sufficiency of evidence; the trial court admitted the ALS form and test results and convicted; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for DUI | Officer had sufficient observations (odor, balance, bloodshot eyes) plus bouncer report — probable cause existed | Officer lacked direct observation of driving and temporal certainty about sobriety while driving | Held: Probable cause existed based on totality (officer observations + bouncer report) |
| Whether an arrest for DUI occurred such that implied consent applies | Reading the ALS form to a person already in custody effectuates a DUI arrest when officer had probable cause | Ducharme was only arrested for simple assault; reading form did not create DUI arrest so implied consent statute did not apply | Held: Reading ALS form to a person already in custody, when officer had probable cause, constituted arrest for DUI; implied consent applied |
| Miranda / "confusion doctrine" and admissibility of post-invocation ALS/test evidence | ALS questioning is not interrogation under Miranda; continuation permitted despite invocation; confusion doctrine not recognized here | Ducharme argued Miranda invocation required clarification that right to counsel did not apply to ALS testing and that failure to clarify induced confusion so evidence should be excluded | Held: Consistent with Goding and Muniz, ALS inquiries are not Miranda interrogation; court declines to adopt confusion doctrine here because Ducharme did not claim actual confusion and he consented and submitted to tests |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of DUI | Circumstantial proof (bouncer’s observation he drove, officer’s impairment observations, admissions, failed FSTs, .17 BAC) sufficed | Ducharme argued lack of proof he drove while impaired and absence of officer’s personal observation of driving or sobriety at time of driving | Held: Evidence sufficient; a rational trier of fact could find Ducharme drove while impaired beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maga, 166 N.H. 279 (determination of probable cause uses totality of circumstances and practical considerations)
- State v. Vandebogart, 139 N.H. 145 (probable cause assessed from officer’s viewpoint and as a whole)
- Saviano v. Director, 151 N.H. 315 (interpretation of implied consent statute)
- State v. Goding, 128 N.H. 267 (implied consent questioning is not Miranda interrogation)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (provides that certain administrative questioning about breath tests is not interrogation under Miranda)
- State v. Belleville, 166 N.H. 58 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Kelley, 159 N.H. 449 (circumstantial evidence and inferences in DUI prosecutions)