State v. Papazoni, 87-429
| Decision Date | 01 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-429,87-429 |
| Citation | 596 A.2d 1276,157 Vt. 337 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Darrell L. PAPAZONI. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Gary S. Kessler, Supervising Appellate Prosecutor, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee.
Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant.
Before ALLEN, C.J., GIBSON, DOOLEY and MORSE, JJ., and BARNEY, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
The sole issue on appeal from defendant's conviction of driving under the influence, death resulting, is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding that defendant's intoxicated condition was a proximate cause of the victim's death. We affirm.
In the early morning hours of February 1, 1986, defendant was driving west on Williston Road in South Burlington, a four-lane highway, when his car struck a pedestrian, head on in the left-hand lane as she was crossing the highway from driver's left to right. The victim was intoxicated with a blood-alcohol content of .239%. Evidence was admitted that the victim had become increasingly depressed and had made several suicide attempts during a two-week period before the accident. On this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that the victim, either intentionally or recklessly, ran in front of the car. The jury was instructed that a suicidal act would defeat the element of proximate cause and that in such a case defendant should be found not guilty.
Although the evidence of causation--the nexus between defendant's intoxicated state and the collision--was not strong, taken in the light most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, there was sufficient evidence to fairly and reasonably support a finding of proximate cause beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Norton, 147 Vt. 223, 229, 514 A.2d 1053, 1057 (1986) ().
The area traversed by the victim was unobstructed, so defendant would have seen her had he been attentive. Defendant did not slow down or take any evasive action before impact and only slowed after impact when one of his passengers said she was going to be sick. Immediately before reaching the place of the accident, defendant ran a red light. Police observations of defendant after the accident included the usual signs of intoxication; moreover, defendant had a grin on his face and appeared indifferent to the event. The inferences to be drawn from all the facts and circumstances were that defendant's intoxication caused him to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and excluding the effect of modifying evidence, State v. Papazoni, 157 Vt. 337, ----, 596 A.2d 1276, 1276 (1991), we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Aside from the testimony of the state medical ......
-
State v. Sullivan
...that the State must prove direct causation between the defendant's intoxication and the victim's death. See State v. Papazoni, 157 Vt. 337, 338–39, 596 A.2d 1276, 1276–77 (1991). We do not agree, however, that the challenged jury instruction allowed the jury to convict defendant without req......
-
State v. Sullivan
...that the State must prove direct causation between the defendant's intoxication and the victim's death. See State v. Papazoni, 157 Vt. 337, 338-39, 596 A.2d 1276, 1276-77 (1991). We do not agree, however, that the challenged jury instruction allowed the jury to convict defendant without req......
-
State v. Robar
...[must be] sufficient evidence to fairly and reasonably support a finding of [guilt] beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Papazoni, 157 Vt. 337, ----, 596 A.2d 1276, 1276 (1991); see also State v. Derouchie, 140 Vt. 437, 445, 440 A.2d 146, 150 (1981) (standard in all cases is "whether the ev......