State v. Sweet

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of operating a noncommercial vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, a “DUI per se,” holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving a “Norquay instruction” to the jury.Although Defendant did not directly attack the Norquay instruction given by the district court, he described it as a tactic to “try to force a verdict from a potentially deadlocked jury,” comparing it to disapproved jury directives used in cases such as Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446 (1965), and suggested that the court acted too hastily in giving the instruction. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the instruction complied with Montana law; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in the timing of its giving of the Norquay instruction. View "State v. Sweet" on Justia Law