Case Title: State v. Valyou

Citation: 180 Vt. 627, 2006 VT 105, 910 A.2d 922

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-10-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Valyou (2005-571); 180 Vt. 627; 910 A.2d 922

2006 VT 105

[Filed 11-Oct-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 105

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-571

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006


  State of Vermont                     }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.                              }         District Court of Vermont,
                                       }         Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit
  Corey J. Valyou                      }
                                       }         DOCKET NO. 503-9-05 AnCr

                                                 Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The State charged defendant with one count of grossly
  negligent operation of a motor vehicle, with serious injury resulting, as a
  result of his falling asleep while driving and causing an accident.  23
  V.S.A. § 1091(b).  Defendant successfully moved to dismiss under V.R.Cr.P.
  12(d), and the State appealed.  The district court found that defendant's
  admission that he felt drowsy and had fallen asleep "a couple of times"
  while driving shortly before his accident was not, as a matter of law,
  sufficient evidence of gross negligence as required by statute.  We
  disagree, and reverse and remand.
   
       ¶  2.  The evidence upon which the district court relied is as
  follows: At around 4:30 a.m. on the morning of August 1, 2005, defendant
  set out from Westford, Vermont on his way to Rutland, where he planned to
  be at work by 6:30 a.m.  On Route 7 in Salisbury, he fell asleep at the
  wheel of his moving vehicle.  He traveled across the oncoming lane of
  traffic and collided with another vehicle, resulting in substantial
  injuries to the other driver.  Defendant was awakened only by the impact of
  the crash.  Later, he told the investigating officer that he had been
  feeling drowsy during his commute.  He also stated:  "I nodded off a couple
  of times, I usually do and I wake myself back up but that morning I
  didn't."   
   
       ¶  3.  The State charged defendant with one count of grossly
  negligent operation with serious injury resulting pursuant to 23 V.S.A. §
  1091(b).  Defendant moved to dismiss, contending that the State could not
  make out a prima facie case of gross negligence.  V.R.Cr.P. 12(d).  The
  trial court found that despite being a "close case" involving "something
  more than mere falling asleep," defendant was correct.  In reaching this
  conclusion the district court relied on two cases from other jurisdictions,
  Clancy v. State, 829 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) and Hargrove v.
  Commonwealth, 394 S.E.2d 729 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).  Based on these cases,
  discussed herein, and an interest in drawing a "clear distinction" between
  ordinary and gross negligence, the court concluded that "to continue
  driving under the circumstances of knowing one is drowsy or prone to
  falling asleep is negligent.  But it is not, by itself, grossly negligent."  

       ¶  4.  We review questions of law de novo.  State v. Damon, 2005 VT
  54, ¶ 6, 178 Vt. 564,