Case Title: State v. Mcelreavy

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-09-01T00:00:00Z

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. 88-260


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Edward A. McElreavy                          Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

                                             September Term, 1990


Dean B. Pineles, J.

Jane Woodruff, Orleans County State's Attorney, Newport, and Gary Kessler
  and Rosemary Hull, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for
  plaintiff-appellee

Robert Katims of Martin & Paolini, P.C., Barre, for defendant-appellant



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.   Defendant appeals from a conviction after jury trial for
arson, arguing a violation of Vermont constitutional guarantees against
self-incrimination, improper failure of the trial court to suppress
statements made in the absence of a Miranda warning, and certain errors
during sentencing.  We affirm.
                                    I.
     Defendant operated a restaurant as a lessee in a St. Johnsbury building
in which a fire occurred on the night of September 24, 1986.  When the
firemen arrived, the door of the building was locked.  Detective Richard
Hall, a state fire investigator, arrived at the scene during the fire and
noticed a petroleum odor, although the building was heated by propane.  He
testified that the evidence indicated a multiple-origin fire, which was
consistent with arson.  In the bar area of the restaurant, there was a
melted plastic jug, and another jug in the kitchen inside a pail.  Tests
indicated that the liquid in the jugs was gasoline.  Defendant, who was in
the building when the fire began, had been seen emptying out jugs in the
parking lot of a department store earlier that same evening.  Plastic rings
from gallon jugs found at the parking lot matched the jugs found at the
scene of the fire.  Inside a closet that was determined to be a separate
point of origin, firemen found some burned debris on top of a plastic pail;
the debris emitted a strong odor of petroleum.
     Defendant testified that he had left the building after closing the
restaurant prior to the fire, but returned to retrieve a forgotten money
bag.  He stated that a "ball of fire" emerged when he threw a breaker
switch to turn on the lights.  A witness who was driving by the restaurant
at the time testified that he saw the entire dining area light up in flames,
an account that was consistent with a gasoline fire, according to the
testimony of the St. Johnsbury fire chief.  Detective Hall questioned
defendant at the scene of the fire.  The trial court denied a motion to
suppress testimony about that interview and also refused to suppress
physical evidence seized at the scene immediately after the fire was
extinguished.
     Subsequent to the fire, defendant filed a claim with his fire insurance
carrier seeking recovery of more than $11,000.  Defendant's policy included
a provision requiring him to submit to examination under oath in connection
with any claim he might make.  When the insurance carrier sought to depose
defendant about his claim, it notified him that he would forfeit his claim
if he failed to appear for the deposition.  Shortly after notice of the
deposition was given to defendant, the State filed its information against
him.  Defendant did not appear at the deposition or ever communicate,
either directly or through a representative, with the insurance company or
its attorney.
     Prior to trial, the court denied defendant's motion in limine to
exclude testimony that he had failed to appear for the civil deposition.
After an eight-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict, and the
present appeal followed.
                                    II.
                                    A.
     Defendant argues that the State's comment on his failure to appear for
the civil deposition violated his Vermont constitutional rights.  He con-
tends that Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution offers broader
protection against self-incrimination than the United States Constitution,
and urges this Court to follow Pennsylvania's lead and not "'differentiate
between situations where the right to remain silent is exercised following
warnings and where it is exercised without warnings being given.'"
Commonwealth v. Turner, 499 Pa. 579, 584,