Case Title: State v. Koch

Citation: 171 Vt. 515, 760 A.2d 505

Docket Number: 98-416

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Koch (98-416); 171 Vt. 515; 760 A.2d 505 

[Filed 14-June-2000]

                                ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-416

                           SEPTEMBER TERM, 1999

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Lamoille Circuit
Frederick Koch	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 595-9-97 Lecr

       Upon consideration of defendant's motion for reargument, the entry
  order in this matter, issued  December 14, 1999, is withdrawn and the
  following substituted.  In all other respects, the motion  fails to
  identify points of fact or law misapprehended or overlooked by the Court,
  and therefore is  denied.  See V.R.A.P. 40.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Frederick Koch appeals from the district court's denial of
  his motions for judgment  of acquittal and a new trial following a jury
  verdict finding him guilty of grossly negligent operation  of a motor
  vehicle.  He argues that (1) the State failed to prove its case beyond a
  reasonable doubt,  (2) the prosecutor presented an improper closing
  argument, and (3) the jury instructions were  inadequate.  We affirm.

       On May 9, 1997, at around 4:00 p.m., defendant struck a pedestrian,
  Thomas Cataldo, with his  car while driving northbound on Route 100.  The
  accident occurred north of the Village of Stowe.  Cataldo later died as a
  result of his injuries.

       The record evidence reveals that, although the skies were overcast and
  there had been some  drizzle, visibility was clear at the time of the
  accident.  Defendant was taking prescribed lithium, but  there was no
  evidence that he was under the influence of any intoxicating substances. 
  Defendant had  been awake, however, since 4:30 a.m., and had been driving
  for the better part of the day prior to the  accident.  Defendant did not
  recall falling asleep before the accident.

       The record evidence showed that as defendant approached the accident
  scene, he had an  unobstructed line of sight of about 1200 feet, or 400
  yards.  A witness who was driving south down  Route 100 just before the
  accident clearly observed Cataldo, who was over six feet tall and weighed 
  about 185 pounds, from a distance estimated by the State in its opening
  statement to be about 216  yards. (FN1) The witness recalled that Cataldo
  was standing outside of the white fog line, facing in a  southwesterly
  direction. There was no evidence that defendant was speeding or driving
  erratically.   Nor was there evidence that defendant took any evasive
  action to avoid striking 

 

  Cataldo.  The police noted that there were no yaw or skid marks on the
  pavement or in the dirt  shoulder.  The medical evidence indicated that the
  victim was initially struck on the left side and  slightly from behind,
  that he was thrown some distance by the impact, and died from injuries to
  the  brain and lungs.  

       Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a grossly
  negligent manner, resulting  in the death of another, in violation of 23
  V.S.A. § 1091(b).  A jury, which also considered the  lesser-included
  offense of negligent operation, found him guilty of the greater charge. 
  This appeal  followed.

       Defendant first argues that the State failed to present a prima facie
  case of gross negligence,  and the evidence presented does not support such
  a conviction.  He claims that he was entitled to  either a judgment of
  acquittal or a new trial.  

       When reviewing a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we must
  consider whether the  evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
  State and excluding the modifying evidence, is  sufficient to fairly and
  reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  See State
  v.  Brooks, 163 Vt. 245, 254-55,