State v. Bushey, 86-113
| Decision Date | 19 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-113,86-113 |
| Citation | 531 A.2d 902,148 Vt. 197 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Leo W. BUSHEY, Jr. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Kevin G. Bradley, Chittenden Co. State's Atty., Erick E. Titrud, Deputy State's Atty., and Maxine Grad (on brief), Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee.
Jarvis & Kaplan, Burlington, for defendant-appellant.
Before ALLEN, C.J., HILL *, PECK and GIBSON *, JJ., and BARNEY, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
BARNEY, Chief Justice (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2). On appeal he argues for reversal of his conviction because the trial court should have granted (1) his motion to suppress all of his statements to the police officers on the night involved; (2) his motion for judgment of acquittal, and, in any event, (3) his motion for a new trial. We will examine each of these contentions in detail, but the final conclusion is that the judgment of guilty is affirmed.
At one-thirty in the morning the defendant was in a vehicle that had been brought to a halt in the parking lot of a furniture store in Shelburne. A South Burlington police officer who happened to be stopped nearby noticed the vehicle in question. He watched the driver, in a cowboy hat, exit from behind the wheel and one passenger alight from the other side of the car. Testifying that he kept both people in view he drove over to the vehicle from some 75 or 100 yards away. He accosted the defendant, the man wearing the cowboy hat, and immediately detected a slight odor of alcohol, although there was no speech impairment. He asked the defendant if he had been drinking. The defendant said he had been driving about five minutes and had had a beer while driving.
The officer then asked the defendant to perform several standard dexterity tests. The results led the officer to conclude that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was taken to the South Burlington police station for processing, and given Miranda warnings on the way and again on arrival at the station. While at the station the defendant admitted that he had been driving, and that he had had three beers and a half a pint of whiskey, finishing drinking about one-thirty in the morning.
The defendant's motion to suppress is based on the proposition that, under State v. Goyet, 120 Vt. 12, 48, 132 A.2d 623, 647 (1957), a conviction cannot be based on the confession of a defendant unsupported by any other evidence. The defendant argues this proposition in terms of the need for proof of the "corpus delicti" as a preliminary to eliciting incriminating statements. The use of this technical term as a shorthand description referring to the existence of the elements of a crime does not alter the substantive requirements of the rules relating to corroboration. As Goyet points out, the supporting corroboration may qualify even if slight, and "need not independently prove the commission of the crime charged, either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence." Id.
To begin with, the approach of the officer to the car in the parking lot was appropriate under Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440-42, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3150-52, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), and did not need a preexisting probable cause. State v. Graves, 145 Vt. 271, 272-73, 487 A.2d 157, 158 (1984) (). Once the officer made that approach the evidence discloses facts, other than the statement of the defendant, supportive of the officer's decision to further process the defendant for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This evidence was adequate to satisfy the corroboration requirement of State v. Goyet, 120 Vt. at 48, 132 A.2d at 647.
The defendant introduced evidence at trial that a third person, his brother, was driving the car, exited the vehicle, gave the defendant his hat and disappeared behind the furniture building before the officer arrived. From this the defendant argues that there was no proof that he was the driver, and therefore nothing to establish him as the criminal. From this he claims that there was no corpus delicti and his statements should have been suppressed.
In reality, all that the defendant has accomplished is to establish that the evidence was conflicting, which is certainly sufficient to satisfy corpus delicti and, putting it in more current terminology, establish probable cause. There is no basis for exclusion of defendant's statements on such a ground.
The motion for judgment of acquittal likewise rests on the contention that the evidence as to identity and intoxication is insufficient on each point as a matter of law. As already noted, the evidence on both issues was controverted, with both issues supported by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desco Corp. v. Harry W. Trushel Const. Co.
... ... Several witnesses concluded that the fire was of an incendiary origin, but were unable to state how it occurred or who had caused it. Trushel could not be reasonably expected at the outset of ... ...
-
Foti Fuels, Inc. v. Kurrle Corp.
... ... We address this argument de novo because the issues it raises are strictly matters of law. State v. Neisner, 2010 VT 112, ¶ 11, 189 Vt. 160, 16 A.3d 597. We therefore evaluate it by the same ... ...
-
State v. Gray
...suspects were ordered from trailer by police officers with weapons drawn, and then questioned by federal agents); State v. Bushey, 148 Vt. 197, 199, 531 A.2d 902, 904 (1987) (approach of officer to vehicle did not require probable cause). Nor did a Fourth Amendment seizure occur when the of......
-
Hartnett v. Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...and mental anguish. Before reaching this argument, we must determine whether it was properly preserved. See, e.g., State v. Bushey, 148 Vt. 197, 200, 531 A.2d 902, 904 (1987). Following the charge to the jury, defendant made three objections relating to damages. They were: (1) it was error ......