Case Title: State v. Beayon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-11-01T00:00:00Z

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. 89-309


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit

 Pamela J. Beayon                             November Term, 1991


 Francis B. McCaffrey, J.

 James P. Mongeon, Rutland County State's Attorney, Rutland, for plaintiff-
   appellee

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney,
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals her conviction, following a jury trial,
 for vehicular homicide.  She asks us to determine whether a violation of 23
 V.S.A. { 1091(c) requires, at a minimum, a mens rea of criminal negligence.
 We hold that it does, and reverse and remand for a new trial.
      Defendant was travelling west on Route 4-A in Ira on a wet surface when
 she lost control of her car and collided with an eastbound vehicle operated
 by Charles Delaney.  A passenger in the Delaney vehicle sustained injuries
 that resulted in her death weeks later.
      By amended information, the State charged defendant with violations of
 23 V.S.A. {{ 1091(a) (FN1) and 1091(c). (FN2) At trial, the defense 
 unsuccessfully argued that a conviction for violating { 1091(c), which 
 carries a penalty of between one- and fifteen-years imprisonment and/or a 
 fine of up to $3000, could not be based on ordinary negligence, but required 
 the minimum mens rea of criminal negligence.  The trial court instructed the 
 jury it could convict defendant if it found that she breached the duty of 
 ordinary care.  The jury convicted defendant of both offenses.  This appeal 
 followed.
      The State charged defendant with operating in a careless and negligent
 manner in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 1091(a).  Vermont case law firmly
 establishes that "ordinary negligence such as would impose civil liability"
 suffices for a conviction under { 1091(a).  State v. Stevens, 150 Vt. 251,
 252,