Title: State v. Millette

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Millette (2001-156); 173 Vt. 596; 795 A.2d 1182

[Filed 15-Feb-2002]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 11-Mar-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-156

                             JANUARY TERM, 2002

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit
Chad A. Millette	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1473-11-98 Wrcr

                                                Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson

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

       The State appeals a Windsor District Court decision granting
  defendant's motion to dismiss charges  that he aided in the commission of a
  DUI, in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1711.  The State argues that the trial 
  court erred in granting defendant's motion.  We affirm.

       On June 17, 1998, defendant Chad Millette drove his car from
  Bennington to Windham, Vermont  to visit a friend.  While at his friend's
  home, defendant, his friend, and a mutual friend, Alonzo Gilbert,   had
  several beers.  The men decided to go fishing in the late afternoon, in
  Chester, and defendant  consumed four or five more beers at the fishing
  hole.  Defendant and Gilbert drove to Londonderry to  purchase more beer
  and returned to their friend's home in Windham.  Not long after, defendant
  and  Gilbert left for Cactus Jacks, a bar and strip club in White River
  Junction.   

       Defendant and Gilbert watched "shows" and drank more beer at Cactus
  Jacks. At some point in the  late evening hours of June 17 or the early
  morning hours of June 18, 1998, defendant and Gilbert  prepared to leave
  Cactus Jacks.  There was heavy rain, and defendant suggested that they pull
  the car  behind the club and sleep.  Gilbert removed defendant's keys from
  defendant's pocket and responded that  he would drive defendant home. 
  Defendant and Gilbert got into the car, and Gilbert drove South on 
  Interstate 91.  Once on the road, defendant fell asleep, waking up to
  Gilbert's request that he help Gilbert  stay awake.  Defendant's car rolled
  over onto the side of the interstate, killing Gilbert.  Defendant asserts 
  that the next thing he could recall is waking up at a hospital.      

       Defendant was charged on five counts, which as later amended, include:
  (1) DUI, death resulting,  in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2); (2) DUI,
  third offense, both as the principal, in violation of 23  V.S.A. §
  1201(a)(2), and as an accessory, in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1711; (3)
  driving when his license  had been suspended for DUI in Windsor County, in
  violation of 23 V.S.A. § 674(b); (4) driving when his  license had been
  suspended for DUI from Bennington to Windham, in violation of 23 V.S.A. §
  674(b);  and (5) driving when his license had been suspended for DUI from
  Windham to Chester, in violation of  23 V.S.A. § 674(b).  Defendant moved
  to dismiss the second count for lack of a prima facie 

 

  case, pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 12(d).  The trial court granted defendant's
  motion, and dismissed the charge of  violating 23 V.S.A. § 1711, aiding in
  the commission of a DUI, and ordered the State to amend the  second count
  accordingly.  The State now appeals that determination.  

       The State argues, on appeal, that the trial court erred in granting
  the Rule 12(d) motion because: (1)  the State's evidence was sufficient to
  establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had committed  the
  offense; (2) the trial court, in its opinion and order, found insufficient
  evidence on the  charge of  aiding in a DUI death resulting, when in fact,
  the charge was aiding in a DUI.  In reviewing a motion to  dismiss for lack
  of prima facie case under Rule 12(d), we look to whether the evidence,
  taken in the light  most favorable to the State, excluding modifying
  evidence, would fairly and reasonably tend to show  defendant committed the
  offense, beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Dixon, 169 Vt. 15, 17,