Title: State v. Sullivan

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

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. 86-455
 
 
State of Vermont                             Supreme Court
 
      v.                                     On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont
Thomas J. Sullivan                           Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
 
                                             January Term, 1990
 
 
Joseph J. Wolchik, J.
 
Dale O. Gray, Caledonia County State's Attorney, St. Johnsbury, and Jo-Ann
  Gross, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee
 
Rexford & Kilmartin, Newport, for defendant-appellant
 
 
PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
 
 
     MORSE, J.   Defendant appeals a conviction for failing to tag a deer in
violation of 10 V.S.A. App. { 2b, a regulation of the Vermont Fish and
Wildlife Board.  We affirm.
     On November 16, 1985, in response to a telephone call reporting
defendant as a lost hunter, a police officer along with two game wardens
began searching for defendant.  After speaking with defendant's neighbors
and consulting a topographical map of the area, they located defendant by
sounding a siren and using a loudspeaker in the area where he usually
hunted.  Defendant had in his possession an untagged deer and consequently
was charged with violating 10 V.S.A. App. { 2b, which stated at the time of
the offense in relevant part:
          A person who takes a deer in open season shall
          immediately affix the locking tag securely to the deer
          by locking the tag through the hock or gambrel joint in
          such a manner to prevent removal.  The tag shall remain
          on the carcass during possession and transportation
          until the deer is cut up for consumption.
 
                                    I.
     Defendant objected to the trial court taking judicial notice of { 2b,
because as a regulation it was not authenticated by 1 V.S.A. {{ 4 and 60
(published statutes certified authentic by the chairman of the Statutory
Revision Commission are admissible in all Vermont courts as prima facie
evidence of the law).
     Even if we accept defendant's argument that the regulation in issue was
not covered by the certificate of authentication because it was contained in
an appendix to Title 10, defendant never questioned whether the regulation
was authentic, whether it was properly promulgated pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, 3 V.S.A. {{ 801-849, or whether it was within
the power of the Board to promulgate, 10 V.S.A. { 4082.  Moreover,
V.R.Cr.P. 26.1(a) provides in pertinent part:
 
          The court, in determining [a regulation], may consider
          any relevant material or source, including testimony,
          whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under
          the Vermont Rules of Evidence.  The court's
          determination shall be treated as a ruling on a
          question of law.
     For the first time, on appeal, defendant claims the State failed to
produce a copy of { 2b properly certified by the Secretary of State,
thereby meeting the requirement of 3 V.S.A. { 113 (Secretary of State's duly
certified copies of recorded documents shall be competent evidence in
court).  We express no opinion on whether { 113 applies.  This purported
ground for challenging the authenticity of { 2b was waived because defendant
did not raise it in the trial court.  State v. Schmitt, 150 Vt. 503, 506
n.*,