State v. Ayotte, 207 A.3d 614

Early-morning single-vehicle crash; Ayotte admitted driving, smelled of alcohol, had dilated eyes; he and his injured girlfriend were taken to hospital.
Blood was drawn about 1 hour 15 minutes after the crash; test showed .078 g/100 mL (± .005).
Ayotte moved to suppress the blood result, arguing his consent to the draw was not knowing or voluntary due to concussion-related memory gaps and alleged pressure regarding his injured girlfriend.
At the suppression hearing, the court found Ayotte had capacity and voluntarily signed consent and denied suppression.
At trial, the State's chemist testified using reverse extrapolation (RE) to opine BAC > .08 at the time of the crash; Ayotte cross-examined with a 1985 Dubowski article.
In closing the prosecutor called sweat-pad and saliva techniques from the Dubowski article "outdated;" Ayotte objected and requested a curative instruction, which the court declined, giving only standard instructions that attorneys' statements are not evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ayotte's consent to blood draw was knowing and voluntary (Fourth Amendment)	Ayotte: concussion, foggy memory, and alleged pressure about his girlfriend meant he lacked capacity and voluntariness to consent.	State: Ayotte made medical decisions and signed consent forms after forms were reviewed; consent satisfied burden.	Court: Consent was knowingly and voluntarily given; suppression denial affirmed.
Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by calling Dubowski techniques "outdated" and whether a curative instruction was required	Ayotte: Prosecutor misstated the article and injected unsupported evidence; curative instruction necessary.	State: Comment distinguished techniques not used in lab and not used in Maine for decades; not a comment on article's scientific validity.	Court: No prosecutorial misconduct; statement viewed in context, no bad faith or exceptional prejudice; standard jury instruction was sufficient.

State v. Simons, 169 A.3d 399 (Me. 2017) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Palmer, 190 A.3d 1009 (Me. 2018) (consent standard and review)
State v. LeMeunier-Fitzgerald, 188 A.3d 183 (Me. 2018) (blood draws are searches requiring warrant or exception)
State v. Nadeau, 1 A.3d 445 (Me. 2010) (standard of review for consent findings)
State v. Dolloff, 58 A.3d 1032 (Me. 2012) (prosecutor's special responsibility; assessing prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Winslow, 930 A.2d 1080 (Me. 2007) (curative instructions generally sufficient absent bad faith or exceptional prejudice)
State v. Marr, 551 A.2d 456 (Me. 1988) (trial court discretion on curative instruction)