State v. Hull, No. 82-344
| Docket Nº | No. 82-344 |
| Citation | 465 A.2d 1371, 143 Vt. 353 |
| Case Date | September 06, 1983 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Page 1371
v.
Reginald E. HULL.
Shelley A. Hill, Windsor County Deputy State's Atty., White River Junction, for plaintiff-appellee.
Catherine W. Scott of Johnson & Dunne, Norwich, for defendant-appellant.
Before BILLINGS, C.J., and HILL, UNDERWOOD, PECK and GIBSON, JJ.
BILLINGS, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal by defendant from a conviction of driving while under the influence [DWI]. 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2).
[143 Vt. 354] Defendant was involved in a one-truck accident. The state police officer who arrived at the scene administered an alco-sensor breath test, which measured defendant's blood alcohol at .12 percent. As a result, he was then taken to the police barracks and given a gas chromatograph breath test, otherwise known as a crimper test, which showed a reading of .20 percent blood alcohol. Prior to trial, the State brought a motion in limine requesting that any evidence relating to the alco-sensor test be excluded, and the trial court granted the motion over defendant's objection. The only issue on appeal is whether it was error to grant the motion in limine and exclude all testimony relating to the results of the alco-sensor test.
The defendant claims: (1) that he had a right to use the test results in order to impeach the testimony of the state chemist regarding the results of the crimper test; (2) that since the statutory prohibition against using the alco-sensor test results, found in 23 V.S.A. § 1202(b), is designed solely for the protection of the defendant, he alone may be permitted to waive it; and (3) failure to allow evidence of alco-sensor
Page 1372
test results prevented him from presenting a full and fair defense to the charge.23 V.S.A. § 1202(b) reads as follows:
A law enforcement officer may test an individual with a preliminary breath alcohol screening device one or more times in order to determine whether further and more accurate testing is appropriate. The results of the breath alcohol screening test shall not be introduced as evidence and a sample of this breath test need not be retained or delivered to the defendant. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (c) of this section, the individual shall not have the right to consult an attorney prior to submitting to this preliminary breath alcohol screening test.
Where the meaning of a statute is plain, there is no necessity for construction and the court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simuro ex rel. K.S. v. Shedd, Case No. 2:13-cv-30
...Moreover, there is a presumption that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language was intended by the legislature.” State v. Hull , 143 Vt. 353, 354, 465 A.2d 1371 (Vt.1983).Here, there is no doubt that claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotiona......
-
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:96-CV-158.
...the meaning of the statute is not clear this Court must ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. See State v. Hull, 143 Vt. 353, 354, 465 A.2d 1371, 1372 (1983) (stating that the rules of statutory interpretation are aids developed for the purpose of determining legisl......
-
State v. Kinney, No. 09–265.
...available and should be used). Accordingly, the PBT statute limits the application of PBT results in court proceedings. See State v. Hull, 143 Vt. 353, 355, 465 A.2d 1371, 1372 (1983) (“[H]aving made a determination of the preliminary test's reliability, the [L]egislature chose to limit its......
-
State v. Kinney, No. 2009-265
...available and should be used). Accordingly, the PBT statute limits the application of PBT results in court proceedings. See State v. Hull, 143 Vt. 353, 355, 465 A.2d 1371, 1372 (1983) ("[H]aving made a determination of the preliminary test's reliability, the [L]egislature chose to limit its......
-
Simuro ex rel. K.S. v. Shedd, Case No. 2:13-cv-30
...Moreover, there is a presumption that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language was intended by the legislature.” State v. Hull , 143 Vt. 353, 354, 465 A.2d 1371 (Vt.1983).Here, there is no doubt that claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotiona......
-
Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:96-CV-158.
...the meaning of the statute is not clear this Court must ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature. See State v. Hull, 143 Vt. 353, 354, 465 A.2d 1371, 1372 (1983) (stating that the rules of statutory interpretation are aids developed for the purpose of determining legisl......
-
State v. Kinney, No. 09–265.
...available and should be used). Accordingly, the PBT statute limits the application of PBT results in court proceedings. See State v. Hull, 143 Vt. 353, 355, 465 A.2d 1371, 1372 (1983) (“[H]aving made a determination of the preliminary test's reliability, the [L]egislature chose to limit its......
-
State v. Kinney, No. 2009-265
...available and should be used). Accordingly, the PBT statute limits the application of PBT results in court proceedings. See State v. Hull, 143 Vt. 353, 355, 465 A.2d 1371, 1372 (1983) ("[H]aving made a determination of the preliminary test's reliability, the [L]egislature chose to limit its......