Title: State v. Santelli

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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-531


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit
 Arthur Santelli
                                              September Term, 1992



 Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David E. Tartter, Assistant
 Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and Kerry B. DeWolfe and William A. Nelson,
 Appellate Attorneys, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.   Defendant, who had refused to submit to an evidentiary
 breath test, was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence of
 intoxicating liquor.  He appeals on two grounds.  First, he contends that
 the trial court erred by denying his request to remove for cause a member of
 the jury panel who expressed a fixed belief that anyone who refused to
 submit to a breath test was guilty.  Second, defendant argues that the trial
 court should have permitted defendant to testify as to why he refused to
 take a breath test, rather than excluding his proposed testimony as
 impermissible hearsay.  We agree with both arguments and reverse and remand.
      On November 9, 1990, defendant, Arthur Santelli, was driving home from
 his brother's house when he was involved in an accident with another
 vehicle.  The police officers who responded to the accident charged defend-
 ant with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) because he
 smelled of alcohol.  Defendant admitted that he had consumed four beers, but
 claimed that he was not impaired because of the length of time over which he
 had consumed them.  The police administered sobriety tests, two of which
 were dexterity tests that defendant explained to the officer he would be
 unable to perform due to recent hip surgery.  Defendant refused to submit to
 a breath test and informed the officer that his refusal was based upon
 information he learned from police officer friends that the test was
 unreliable.
      During voir dire, the jury panel was questioned about its ability to
 find defendant not guilty of DUI charges despite his refusal to submit to a
 breath test.  The following exchange took place between the defense attorney
 and one of the prospective jurors:
         MR. HOWARD: [W]ould you feel that if you heard a person didn't
         take the [breath] test, that that would make them guilty
         automatically to you?

         JUROR: Yes, I would feel that.

         . . . .

         MR. HOWARD: Would it make any difference to you if the Judge
         instructed you that that is the law, that a person can simply
         decline the test for any personal reason or whatever?  He doesn't
         trust them, doesn't like them, whatever, would that overcome it,
         or would you just rely on the . . .

         JUROR: I feel that the person should take the test.

         MR. HOWARD: And if he didn't, that would . . .[. . .] . . . that would
         make you feel he was under the influence if he didn't.

         JUROR: Right.

         . . . .

         MR. HOWARD: Could you conceive . . . of someone not taking the
         test for a reason that had nothing to do with being under the
         influence?

         JUROR: No, I think it is essential that they take the test.

         MR. HOWARD: If you heard any explanation from a person as to why he
         didn't take the test, that it had nothing to do with being under the
         influence, would you listen to that type of explanation?

         JUROR: No.

         MR. HOWARD: Okay.  You just think they have got to do it?

         JUROR: It is part of the law.

 Defendant moved to strike the juror for cause, but the motion was denied,
 forcing defendant to use a peremptory challenge.  Defendant then used his
 remaining five peremptory challenges to strike other prospective jurors not
 challengeable for cause.  Defendant sought to remove a final prospective
 juror but was unsuccessful as his peremptory challenges had been exhausted.
      It is reversible error to "force a defendant to use his last peremptory
 challenge to exclude a juror challengeable for cause," where the defendant
 indicates his desire to peremptorily challenge another juror.  State v.
 Holden, 136 Vt. 158, 161,