The court examined the history of amendments to the DUI statute and concluded that the Legislature’s addition of § 1201(e) at the same time it amended § 1201(a) to include subsections (a)(l)-(3), see 1973, No. 79, § 1, reflected a legislative concern with preventing multiple convictions based on the different ways the State could prove the operator was impaired. On this basis, the court concluded that § 3323(e) does not bar conviction of two counts of BWI/Fatal. ¶ 55. We need not resolve whether the court’s interpretation of the Legislature’s intent in enacting § 3323(e) is correct because multiple convictions are prohibited for a violation of § 3323(a), even without reliance on § 3323(e), in accordance with our holding in State v. LaBounty, 2005 VT 124, ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 199, 892 A.2d 203 (<HOLDING>). As we explained in interpreting a similar
holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured recognizing that cjlearly buie requires more than ignorance or a constant assumption that more than one person is present in a residence holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim