State v. Paul R. Alzaga, 221 A.3d 378

Background

Around midnight in Middlebury police stopped a vehicle that had driven the wrong way down a one‑way alley; defendant was in the driver’s seat, engine running, keys in ignition.
Officer detected odor of alcohol, watery eyes, slurred speech; defendant admitted drinking; officer administered field sobriety tests (including HGN and walk‑and‑turn).
Defendant refused a preliminary breath test (PBT) at the scene and an evidentiary breath test at the station.
Defendant’s defense was that he was not the driver (he claimed a seat switch when stopped); other passengers said someone else had been driving.
Trial was bifurcated on the prior‑conviction element; jury received a special verdict form with element questions and returned affirmative answers; defendant then stipulated to a prior DUI and the court entered judgment.
On appeal defendant challenged (1) admission of PBT refusal and HGN testimony, (2) failure to define “reasonable grounds” in jury instructions and omission of his affirmative defense on the verdict form, and (3) whether a verdict was properly returned.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of PBT refusal and HGN testimony	Evidence admissible to show officer had reasonable grounds; officer had DUI/HGN training and provided foundation	PBT refusal barred by statute / due process; HGN required expert foundation and was prejudicial	If admission was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt—evidence was cumulative and defendant disputed identity not impairment
Jury instruction omission — no definition of “reasonable grounds”	Court’s instructions taken as whole accurately reflected law; term has plain meaning	Plain error for failing to give Perley‑style definition of reasonable grounds	No plain error; omission harmless and not prejudicial given overall instructions and defense focus on identity
Verdict form did not explicitly ask about affirmative defense (intent not to drive)	Form and oral instructions adequately covered the affirmative defense; jury told to answer No to operation/control if persuaded	Form should have explicitly asked about intent to drive; plain error	No plain error—defense raised and then accepted the form at trial; instructions explained how to apply the affirmative defense
Whether jury returned a verdict (prior conviction resolved outside jury)	Defendant stipulated to prior; parties and court agreed no need to recall jury; process was invited/waived	Court should have notified jury of stipulation and allowed verdict including prior	Waived/invited error: defendant agreed to bifurcation and stipulation; conviction valid

Key Cases Cited

State v. Perley, 129 A.3d 93 (defines “reasonable grounds” akin to probable cause)
State v. Oscarson, 845 A.2d 337 (harmless‑error standard for admitted evidence)
State v. Coburn, 898 A.2d 128 (facts supporting reasonable grounds for DUI)
State v. Ladue, 168 A.3d 430 (holding HGN reference harmless where impairment not contested)
State v. Schapp, 212 A.3d 1226 (PBT refusal admissible to show reasonable grounds)
State v. McMahon, 603 A.2d 1128 (no requirement to define “reasonable doubt”)
State v. Dow, 152 A.3d 437 (court should avoid over‑definition; plain meaning often sufficient)
State v. Lambert, 830 A.2d 9 (plain‑error review standard)
State v. Malshuk, 857 A.2d 282 (plain error requires undermining confidence in verdict)