State v. Mahoney, 397
| Decision Date | 27 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 397,397 |
| Citation | 227 A.2d 401,126 Vt. 258 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Richard J. MAHONEY. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
David Jenkins, City Grand Juror, Burlington, for plaintiff.
Joseph Wool, Burlington, for defendant.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., and SHANGRAW, BARNEY, SMITHI and KEYSER, JJ.
The procedures for bringing questions to this Court before final judgment continue to plague practitioners. There are two steps. The first is to obtain recorded permission from the court concerned to bring up to this Court the questions to be decided. Failure to do this means a failure to confer the jurisdiction necessary to deal with the case at all, here, at that point. Webster, Exce. LaDuke Est. v. LaDuke, 126 Vt. 27, 220 A.2d 474; Roy v. Roy, 123 Vt. 92, 182 A.2d 337.
The second step, required by Rule 2A of the Supreme Court, 12 VSA App I R 2A, is to obtain from the certifying court a signed statement of the questions to be presented here for review. Even though jurisdiction may have been conferred by step one, if the statement of questions is lacking, this Court may refuse to accept the attempted certification. Davis v. Albany Discount Corp., 125 Vt. 330, 331, 215 A.2d 519. However, in its discretion, if an advance answer to the questions would appear to benefit the course of the litigation, the Court may, aternatively, enlarge the rule. A properly formulated and authenticated statement of the questions for decision may then be filed out of time. Interlocutory entries, allowing this to be accomplished, have been issued from time to time by this Court. Town of Putney v. Town of Brookline, 126 Vt. --, 225 A.2d 388, 392; compare In re Crescent Beach Asso., 125 Vt. 321, 324, 215 A.2d 502.
This is an appeal by the State from a not guilty verdict. It claims the trial court, in its charge, misinterpreted statutory law. Permission to come to this Court was properly established, but the question to be resolved was not framed satisfactorily for review, being far too general, for one thing. Since, in such circumstances, the State can obtain review only by a process of certification, 12 VSA sec. 2386, 13 VSA sec. 7403, State v. Benjamin, 124 Vt. 20, 21, 196 A.2d 507, an opportunity to repair the form of the question to be considered is appropriate.
A secondary issue, not a basis for dismissal, related to the provision of a partial transcript. So that there may be no question, we point out that the statutory authority for the presiding judge to settle the extent of the transcript required to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carpenter
...Center v. Town of Plainfield, supra, 128 Vt. 557, 268 A.2d 788; State v. Duranleau, 128 Vt. 206, 260 A.2d 383 (1969); State v. Mahoney, 126 Vt. 258, 227 A.2d 401 (1967); and Dresden School District v. Norwich Town School District, supra, 124 Vt. 227, 203 A.2d 598, precede the adoption of Ru......
-
Pyramid Co. of Burlington, In re
...Jurisdiction vests in this Court upon certification, regardless of compliance with the rule's criteria. See State v. Mahoney, 126 Vt. 258, 259, 227 A.2d 401, 402 (1967). A failure to satisfy any one of the V.R.A.P. 5(b) criteria nonetheless precludes certification and appellate decision; ap......
-
Poulin v. Town of Danville
...Rule 2 to enable a review of the interlocutory rulings of the lower court as provided by 12 V.S.A. section 2386. See State v. Mahoney, 126 Vt. 258, 259, 227 A.2d 401. The cause is remanded. Supreme Court Rule 2 is enlarged to enable the appellant to procure permission to appeal before final......
-
Wilbur v. University of Vt. and State Agr. College
...available as a matter of right, the time for certifying questions under 12 V.S.A. § 2386 may be enlarged by this Court. State v. Mahoney, 126 Vt. 258, 259, 227 A.2d 401. We hold there is equivalent discretion in the court in which the question arises to extend the time for perfecting the ap......