State v. Perkins

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of operating under the influence (OUI) with a refusal to submit to a chemical test, holding that the jury instructions given in this case were not confusing to the jury.Here, the State presented two alternative theories of guilt - principal liability and accomplice liability. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a new trial because the jury instructions on a driver’s duty to submit to a chemical test and on accomplice liability confused the jury and did not provide a roadmap for the jury to be able to return a not guilty verdict. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed after clarifying and distinguishing the two alternate theories, holding (1) the jury instructions were clear that the refusal instruction was inapplicable to the charge of accomplice liability in an OUI case; and (2) there was no prejudice to Defendant that resulted in an unfair trial. View "State v. Perkins" on Justia Law