State v. Squires

Decision Date07 November 1986
Docket NumberNo. 83-468,83-468
Citation519 A.2d 1154,147 Vt. 430
PartiesSTATE of Vermont v. Roger SQUIRES.
CourtVermont Supreme Court

Philip H. White, Orleans County State's Atty., Newport, for plaintiff-appellee.

David W. Curtis, Defender Gen., and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, and David C. Sleigh, Public Defender, St. Johnsbury, for defendant-appellant.

Before ALLEN, C.J., and HILL, PECK and GIBSON, JJ., and BARNEY, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by defendant Roger Squires from a conviction, after jury trial, of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2). We affirm.

Defendant first argues that reversal is required because the prosecutor impermissibly elicited testimony about and commented upon what defendant did not say at the time of his arrest, thereby denying him a fair trial. We find it unnecessary to reach the merits of this claim because this case does not involve prohibited comment at trial on a defendant's post-arrest silence. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 613-16, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2242-44, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). The record clearly establishes that defendant voluntarily made statements to the police at the time of his arrest that were sufficiently inconsistent with his testimony at trial to justify inquiry and comment by the prosecution. See People v. Hinson, 70 Ill.App.3d 880, 886, 26 Ill.Dec. 898, 903, 388 N.E.2d 899, 904 (1979); People v. Rehbein, 74 Ill.2d 435, 441-42, 24 Ill.Dec. 835, 838, 386 N.E.2d 39, 42 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 919, 99 S.Ct. 2843, 61 L.Ed.2d 287 (1979).

Defendant's primary defense at trial was the "necessity" defense recognized by this Court in State v. Shotton, 142 Vt. 558, 561, 458 A.2d 1105, 1106 (1983). Defendant's theory at trial was that it was necessary for him to take control of the vehicle after the original driver, his seventeen-year-old nephew, had stalled the vehicle in the middle of a well-travelled roadway while attempting to back out of the parking lot of a tavern. We stated in Shotton that an essential element of the necessity defense is that "there must be a situation of emergency arising without fault on the part of the actor concerned...." Id. at 560, 458 A.2d at 1106. Furthermore, before a defendant is entitled to an instruction on a defense, a "defendant must establish a prima facie case on each of the elements of the defense asserted." State v. Knapp, 147 Vt. 56, 59, 509...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Hunt
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 21, 1988
    ...he was in a trance at the time of the killing, and were not impermissible comments on post-arrest silence. See State v. Squires, 147 Vt. 430, 431, 519 A.2d 1154, 1155 (1986). VII. Defendant's final argument is that the trial court allowed inadmissible character evidence when it permitted th......
  • State v. Myers
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 18, 2011
    ...with a truck and the complaining witness had a knife were also circumstances defendant created. See, e.g., State v. Squires, 147 Vt. 430, 431, 519 A.2d 1154, 1155 (1986) (per curiam) (affirming trial court's denial of necessity instruction where defendant's intoxication created emergency). ......
  • State v. Thayer
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 6, 2010
    ...issue of whether the trial court properly excluded the necessity defense is a pure question of law. See State v. Squires, 147 Vt. 430, 431, 519 A.2d 1154, 1155 (1986) (per curiam). We review questions of law de novo. In re Beckstrom, 2004 VT 32, ¶ 9, 176 Vt. 622, 852 A.2d 561 (mem.). Defend......
  • State v. Riedl
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • March 15, 1991
    ... ... Cooke, 94 N.C.App. 386, 387, 380 S.E.2d 382 (1989) (coercion and duress defenses, driving while impaired charge); Com. v. Hoke, 381 Pa.Super. 70, 81, 552 A.2d 1099 (1989) (justification defense, leaving the scene of an accident charge); State v. Squires, 147 Vt. 430, 431, ... 519 A.2d 1154 (1986) (necessity defense, driving under the influence charge) ...         Once we accept the availability of the compulsion defense to absolute liability traffic offenses, we must examine the record carefully to determine whether there was sufficient ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT