State v. Simons, 169 A.3d 399

Background

On Nov. 17, 2015, Officer Gregory Caldwell stopped John T. Simons after observing him accelerate to 42 mph in a 25 mph zone; Simons pulled over about a quarter mile after lights were activated.
Caldwell detected a strong mint odor initially, later smelled alcohol from Simons’s vehicle and breath, observed Simons fumble with papers, and Simons admitted he had been drinking earlier that day.
Caldwell administered field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand); Simons showed multiple indicators of impairment on each test and was arrested.
Simons moved to suppress evidence from the stop and to exclude HGN testimony on foundation grounds; the court denied suppression and allowed HGN testimony (weight, not admissibility, would reflect any certification issues).
A jury convicted Simons of operating under the influence (Class B, based on a prior conviction); Simons appealed, raising suppression, HGN foundation, sufficiency of evidence, and juror impartiality challenges.

Issues

Issue	Simons’ Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to require Simons to exit and perform field sobriety tests	Caldwell lacked sufficient observable indicia of impairment to justify asking Simons out of the vehicle and testing him	Caldwell observed speeding, smell of alcohol, admission of drinking, fumbling and stumbling—sufficient to form reasonable suspicion	Denied: court’s finding of reasonable articulable suspicion affirmed
Whether HGN testimony was admissible without officer HGN “proficiency” certification	HGN testimony should be excluded for lack of proper foundation and compromised reliability	Officer received academy HGN training and described proper administration; certification goes to weight, not admissibility	Admissible: officer qualified by training and proper administration; admission not an abuse of discretion
Sufficiency of evidence to convict of OUI	Performance on tests and other observations insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt	Combined evidence (speeding, admission of drinking, odor, fumbling, stumbling, poor field sobriety performance) supports conviction	Sufficient: conviction affirmed viewing evidence in State’s favor
Whether jurors who initially answered a questionnaire item saying a defendant should present evidence of innocence were impartial	Those jurors’ initial answers showed bias that could not be cured and required exclusion	Court individually questioned jurors; those seated either misread or were confused and expressly said they could follow instructions; no contemporaneous objection to seated jurors	No obvious error: court’s voir dire and impartiality findings sustained, but court criticizes the misleading questionnaire item

Key Cases Cited

State v. Taylor, 694 A.2d 907 (Me. 1997) (establishes HGN admissibility and two-part foundation: officer training and proper administration)
State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 919 (Me. 1995) (investigatory stop and field sobriety testing require specific, articulable facts)
State v. King, 965 A.2d 52 (Me. 2009) (factual findings about officer’s subjective suspicion reviewed for clear error; objective reasonableness reviewed de novo)
State v. Hinkel, 159 A.3d 854 (Me. 2017) (upholds foundation for HGN where officers had academy training)
State v. Atkins, 129 A.3d 952 (Me. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)