State v. D. Iverson, 411 P.3d 1284

Defendant Dara Starr Iverson was stopped for speeding and exhibited signs of impairment; she admitted drinking at two bars and smoking medical marijuana, performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and refused a breath test.
A blood draw about two hours after stop showed BAC 0.107 ± 0.008; toxicologist testified about absorption/elimination uncertainties and that BAC at time of driving is difficult to calculate precisely.
Iverson was charged with DUI and amended to include alternative felony DUI per se (BAC ≥ 0.08); jury acquitted on DUI but convicted on DUI per se.
At trial the district court gave a circumstantial evidence instruction directing jurors to adopt the interpretation they found "most reasonable" when evidence admitted competing inferences; Iverson objected.
At sentencing the court found Iverson financially unable now or in the future to pay fines, fees, or costs; nevertheless the written judgment included an order to pay assigned counsel costs which the State concedes she cannot pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the "most reasonable" circumstantial-evidence instruction violated due process by lowering the State's burden	Instruction merely guides jurors in resolving competing inferences and, read with all instructions, preserves proof beyond a reasonable doubt	The instruction allows conviction on the basis of a "reasonable" inference even when a reasonable innocent interpretation exists, thus undermining beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard	Affirmed: Instruction, read with other instructions (including burden of proof), did not relieve State of its burden; guidance on competing circumstantial inferences is permissible
Whether court erred by imposing costs of assigned counsel on Iverson	State does not contest inability to pay and agrees costs should be stricken	Iverson argues she lacks present and future ability to pay and costs should not be imposed	Reversed in part: Record shows she cannot now or in future pay; remanded to strike assigned-counsel costs from judgment
Whether the written judgment improperly included costs stricken at sentencing	State concedes discrepancy and requests remand to correct judgment	Iverson contends written judgment conflicts with oral pronouncement and court's finding of inability to pay	Partially resolved via remand on counsel-costs issue; court did not address further because assigned-counsel cost error was dispositive

Peterson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 239 P.3d 904 (Mont. 2010) (district court must fully and fairly instruct jury; review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Sanchez, 399 P.3d 886 (Mont. 2017) (upholding pattern circumstantial-evidence instruction permitting jury to choose the most reasonable interpretation)
State v. Miller, 181 P.3d 625 (Mont. 2008) (jury instructions that relieve prosecution of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt violate due process)
Tarlton v. Kaufman, 199 P.3d 263 (Mont. 2008) (jury instructions must fully and fairly state applicable law)
Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1989) (per curiam) (instructions relieving prosecution of burden violate due process)