State v. Schoolcraft

• Decision Date: 03 October 1939
• Docket Number: No. 527.,527.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SCHOOLCRAFT.

8 A.2d 682

STATE

v. SCHOOLCRAFT.

No. 527.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Franklin.

Oct. 3, 1939.

Exceptions from Franklin Municipal Court; P. L. Shangraw, Judge.

Windsor Schoolcraft was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and he brings exceptions.

Affirmed.

Argued before MOULTON, C. J., and SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT, and JEFFORDS, JJ.

Frederick Bedard, Jr., State's Atty, of St. Albans, for the State.

P. C. Warner, of St. Albans, for respondent.

MOULTON, Chief Justice.

The respondent has been convicted of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to the provisions of P.L. 5153, and has brought the cause to this court on exceptions.

The officer who made the arrest testified concerning the respondent's inebriated condition and said that, after taking him to a physician for examination, he brought him to the jail. On cross-examination the witness was asked: "And did you make any complaint against him at that time?" Upon objection by the State the question was excluded, subject to respondent's exception. The offer was that the evidence would tend to show that the officer was not certain what offense ought to be charged against the respondent, since the record indicated that no warrant was issued until two days after the arrest.

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 sound discretion of the trial court, whose action will not be revised here unless an abuse of that discretion is shown, and, the contrary not appearing, it will be taken, that the ruling was made as a matter of discretion. State v. Long, 95 Vt. 485, 491, 115 A. 734; State v. Fairbanks, 101 Vt. 30, 34, 139 A. 918. The offered evidence had only remote bearing upon the issue, and was speculative in nature. We find no abuse of discretion, and the exception is not sustained.

The respondent excepted to a remark made by the State's Attorney in argument to the jury, wherein he said in substance that the defense was sympathy. The ground as stated was merely that the remark was "highly improper." An exception to an argument claimed to be improper must not only state the language objected to, but also specifically the ground of the objection, so that the court may know upon what it is called upon to rule. Usher v. Severance, 86 Vt. 523, 531, 86 A. 741; Miles v. Vermont Fruit Co., 98 Vt. 1, 16, 124 A. 559. An objection that an argument is improper, without informing the court in what the alleged impropriety consists, is not...