Title: State v. Roberge

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. 87-111


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Jean Marc Roberge                            Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit

                                             November Term, 1989


Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

Robin B. Heffner, Orleans County Deputy State's Attorney, Newport, for
   plaintiff-appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, David Williams, Drug Defense Unit,
   and William A. Nelson, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for defendant-
   appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Springer, D.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     PECK, J.   Defendant appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of
three motor vehicle violations:  operating a motor vehicle with a suspended
license in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 674, careless and negligent operation of
a motor vehicle in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 1091(a), and attempting to elude
a police officer in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 1133.  We affirm.
     On appeal, defendant argues that he was denied due process because the
jury was not sworn until after the prosecution rested and was discharged
before it announced a unanimous verdict on each of the three counts.
Defendant also argues that the State presented insufficent evidence at trial
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he operated his vehicle carelessly
and negligently.
                                    I.
     After the State rested and during a jury recess, the prosecutor
discovered that the court had not sworn the jury that morning when the trial
began.  The court swore them upon their return from recess.  Defense
counsel explicitly declined to object to the late swearing, and defendant
personally remained silent.  There is no evidence or allegation that the
jurors disregarded their obligations under the oath for criminal trials, or
of prejudice to the defendant because of the late swearing.
     We have held in a civil case that a party may waive the right to raise
the question of an improperly sworn or unsworn jury on appeal either
expressly or by proceeding with the trial with knowledge of the fact.  B & P
Rambler and Sports Car Center v. Dawson, 126 Vt. 392, 393,