adopting Batchelder reasoning in rejecting constitutional challenge to statutory scheme that allowed prosecutors to proceed against persons charged with drunk driving under criminal or civil statutes, with same elements but varying penalties
How later courts described this case
- adopting Batchelder reasoning in rejecting constitutional challenge to statutory scheme that allowed prosecutors to proceed against persons charged with drunk driving under criminal or civil statutes, with same elements but varying penalties
- rejecting due process and equal protection challenges to a drunk driving law that created both civil and criminal liability
- evidence as to the accuracy and reliability of a blood-alcohol test is an issue for the fact-finder
- prosecutorial discretion is subject to constitutional constraints
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTS and CARTER, Justices,
concurring.
We agree with the result reached by the Court. We do not join in Part IV of the Court’s opinion because we believe its reliance upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 , 99 S.Ct. 2198 , 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979) is misplaced. The statute under which the defendant was convicted does not provide disparate criminal penalties for the same conduct. Rather, the statute purports to authorize alternatively either criminal or civil sanctions for the same conduct. 29 M.R.S.A. §§ 1312-B, 1312-C (Supp.1982-1983).
No constitutional limitation prevents the Legislature from imposing both a criminal and a civil sanction for the same conduct. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 , 58 S.Ct. 630, 633 , 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938). Indeed the sanctions may even be cumulative rather than alternative. United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 , 548-A9, 63 S.Ct. 379, 386-87 , 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943). We need not express any opinion as to whether the Legislature has validly established a civil sanction. See Helvering, 303 U.S. at 399-404 , 58 S.Ct. at 633-636 . The existence of an invalid civil sanction could hardly avail this defendant who was properly prosecuted upon a criminal complaint with no indication of any prosecutorial election of the civil alternative. See State v. Chubbuck, 449 A.2d 347, 349-52 (Me.1982); see generally State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58, 77-85 (Me.1981) (Carter, J., concurring) (criticizing majority for overbroad treatment of constitutional issue). Finally, there is no suggestion in this record of any improper prosecutorial conduct in declining civil prosecution.