State v. Quesnel

• Citation: 69 A.2d 6,116 Vt. 68
• Decision Date: 01 November 1949
• Docket Number: 93
• Parties: STATE OF VERMONT v. ELZEAR QUESNEL
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

69 A.2d 6

116 Vt. 68

STATE OF VERMONT v. ELZEAR QUESNEL

No. 93

Supreme Court of Vermont

November 1, 1949

October term, 1949.

Witnesses.

1. While a reasonable opportunity to show in cross-examination that a witness is unreliable, prejudiced or biased is a matter of right and much latitude is to be allowed in this line, the extent to which it shall be permitted to proceed rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, whose action will not be revised unless an abuse of discretion is shown, and, the contrary not appearing, it will be taken that the ruling was made as a matter of discretion.

2. Evidence offered in an attempt to base an inference of bias of a witness upon speculative matter may be properly excluded.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT charging respondent with operating motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Trial by jury, Addison County Court, Hughes, J., presiding. Verdict of guilty and cause passed to the Supreme Court before final judgment.

Affirmed. Judgment of guilty upon the verdict. Let sentence pass and execution be done.

William S. Burrage for the respondent.

John A. Calhoun, State's Attorney, and Clifton G Parker, Attorney General, for the State.

Present SHERBURNE, C. J., JEFFORDS, CLEARY, ADAMS and BLACKMER, JJ.

OPINION

SHERBURNE

The respondent has been found guilty of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to the provisions of V. S. 10, 287, Rev. of 1947, and the cause has been brought to this Court upon exceptions.

The officer who made the arrest testified concerning the inebriated condition of the respondent. On cross-examination he was asked if he had had some personal difficulty with the respondent or his family, and he answered, "No Sir". He was then asked: "Did you ever have any difficulty with his brother?" Upon objection by the State this question was excluded, subject to the respondent's exception. The offer was that the respondent intended to show that the respondent's brother rented an apartment to the witness, and that he asked the witness to leave the apartment, and he refused to do so, and that it was necessary to bring an ejectment suit to get him out, and that the respondent believed and intended to show that there was bias on the part of the witness against the respondent because of the difficulty he had with his brother.

While a reasonable opportunity to show in cross-examination that a witness is unreliable, prejudiced or biased is a matter of right and much latitude is to be allowed in this line, the extent to which it shall be...