State v. Perkins, 199 A.3d 1174

Late Aug 2016: Perkins and Tuttle drank at several bars; bar manager warned Perkins not to drive, saw them drink from cans, called police after they left.
Officer observed Perkins' truck driving erratically; Perkins found in driver’s seat with slurred speech and lethargic movements.
Perkins arrested for OUI; at station he repeatedly refused a breath test and refused to sign refusal form.
Prosecution tried two alternative theories at trial: (1) Perkins as the intoxicated driver (principal liability); (2) Perkins knowingly allowed intoxicated Tuttle to drive his truck (accomplice liability).
Trial court instructed the jury on both theories and on the refusal-to-test instruction; jury convicted but did not indicate which theory it relied on. Perkins moved for a new trial arguing that the refusal instruction improperly applied to the accomplice theory and confused the jury.

Issue	Perkins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether refusal-to-test instruction improperly applied to accomplice theory and confused jury	Instruction failed to clarify that a defendant's refusal is irrelevant to accomplice liability; deprived him of fair trial	Instruction applied only to an operator and thus could not be used to prove guilt as a non-driver accomplice	Court held instruction was clear and limited to the operator; no prejudice shown; denial of new trial affirmed
Whether court should sua sponte instruct on voluntary intoxication consistent with accomplice theory	Court should have given instruction that accomplice can claim voluntary intoxication defense	No request was made at trial; issue not preserved and not plain error	Court declined to consider unpreserved argument; no obvious error shown

State v. Hurd, 8 A.3d 651 (Me. 2010) (discusses alternative theories of liability and unanimity requirement)
State v. Stratton, 591 A.2d 246 (Me. 1991) (recognizes accomplice liability for OUI; intoxication of non-driver not required)
State v. McNaughton, 168 A.3d 807 (Me. 2017) (standard of review for denial of new trial)
State v. Daniels, 663 A.2d 33 (Me. 1995) (evaluate jury instructions as a whole for potential juror misunderstanding)
State v. Anderson, 152 A.3d 623 (Me. 2016) (conviction vacated only if erroneous instructions resulted in prejudice)
State v. Gauthier, 939 A.2d 77 (Me. 2007) (preservation and obvious-error standard for jury-instruction claims)
State v. Ashley, 666 A.2d 103 (Me. 1995) (trial court has wide discretion in formulating jury instructions)