Case Title: State v. Blow

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88-422

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-422


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Michael Blow                                 November Term, 1990


Edward J. Cashman, J.

William Sorrell, Chittenden County State's Attorney, Burlington, and
  Thomas M. Kelly, Drug Prosecutor, Department of State's Attorneys,
  Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Paul D. Jarvis of Jarvis & Kaplan, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals his conviction of two counts of dis-
pensing marijuana in violation of 18 V.S.A. { 4224(g), and one count of
obstructing justice in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 3015.  We reverse and remand
on all counts.
     On March 6, 1987, a police informant met with a Burlington detective
and indicated that he could purchase drugs from defendant.  He was then
equipped with an electronic audio transmitter, and transported to
defendant's residence, where he purchased marijuana.  The detective
monitored their conversation during the sale.  The same procedure occurred
five days later, with the same detective monitoring the conversations
accompanying the sale.  Defendant was later charged with two counts of
dispensing marijuana to the informant.  The obstruction of justice count was
based on the informant's allegation that on November 27, 1987, defendant
struck him for "ratting him out."
     Defendant's pretrial motion to suppress the tape recordings of the
transactions and the officer's testimony about them was granted.  The trial
judge, however, later ruled that the recordings and testimony could be used
at trial, and the detective testified about the conversations between the
informant and defendant at the time of the sale.  The recordings themselves
were not introduced. The jury convicted defendant, and this appeal
followed.
                                    I.
     We express, at the outset, our disapproval of the action of the trial
judge in reversing the ruling of the motions judge.  Although the error is
not determinative of this appeal, we will explain the reasons for our
disapproval because of the great importance of the issue and the need to
clarify the relationship between pretrial and trial suppression motions.
     Defendant moved to suppress evidence derived from the transmissions.
The motions judge, after a hearing, prepared a well-considered opinion and
order granting the motion.  On the first day of trial in April of 1988, the
State orally requested that the trial judge review the suppression decision
"to determine whether or not the court would rule differently."  The trial
judge decided that the pretrial ruling was wrong and reversed it, stating
that "the trial judge is not bound by the decision of the pretrial judge."
No evidence was offered at the time of the later ruling.  The evidence from
the transmissions was then admitted at trial.
     Motions to suppress are required to be filed pretrial "'to eliminate
from the trial disputes over police conduct not immediately relevant to the
question of guilt.'"  State v. Clark, 152 Vt. 304, 307, 565 A.2d 1332, 1334
(1989) (quoting Jones v. United States,