Case Title: State v. Devine

Citation: 168 Vt. 566, 719 A.2d 861

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-05-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Devine  (96-482); 168 Vt. 566; 719 A.2d 861

[Filed 22-May-1998]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 96-482

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1998

State of Vermont                }     APPEALED FROM:
                                }
                                }
     v.                         }     District Court of Vermont,
                                }     Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
William Devine                  }
                                }     DOCKET NO.  5317-11-94CnCr &
                                                  6367-12-95CnCr

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

       Defendant appeals his conviction for careless and negligent operation
  of a motor vehicle with death resulting (23 V.S.A. § 1091(d)).  Defendant
  contends that the trial court erred when it (1) denied his motion for a
  judgment of acquittal, (2) declined to suppress expert testimony pertaining
  to the post-impact speed of defendant's vehicle, and (3) declined to
  suppress evidence pertaining to defendant's possession of marijuana.  We
  affirm.

       While driving south on Route 7 on March 19, 1994, defendant drove his
  car across the center lane and collided with another vehicle in the
  northbound lane, killing the driver. Defendant was taken to the hospital
  where a bag of marijuana was found in his undergarments. A pipe containing
  marijuana residue was found in defendant's car.  The police subsequently
  informed defendant that they believed he operated his vehicle while under
  the influence of drugs. After being advised of his constitutional and
  statutory rights and after consulting with an attorney, defendant refused
  to provide a blood sample for testing.  Defendant's first trial on charges
  of careless and negligent operation of a motor vehicle (23 V.S.A. §
  1091(d)) resulted in a hung jury, but he was subsequently convicted at a
  second trial.

       Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by denying his
  motion for judgment of acquittal.  When reviewing a denial of a motion for
  a judgment of acquittal, we must consider whether the evidence, taken 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,