Title: State v. Bernier

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. 90-241


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Raymond P. J. Bernier                        Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit

                                             March Term, 1991


Edward J. Cashman, J.

Jane Woodruff, Orleans County State's Attorney, and Persis H. Worrall,
   Deputy State's Attorney (On the Brief), Newport, for plaintiff-appellee

E. M. Allen, Defender General, and William Nelson, Appellate Attorney,
   Montpelier, and Susan A. Davis, Public Defender, Newport, for defendant-
   appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.  Defendant appeals from his conviction for petty larceny of
a television set and misdemeanor unlawful mischief in connection with the
vandalism of a highway rest area.  Defendant argues that the trial court
committed reversible error by (1) refusing to allow defendant's counsel to
voir dire the jury on the issue of reasonable doubt, and (2) permitting a
police officer to read from a transcript of defendant's taped interro-
gation. (FN1) We affirm.
                                    I.
     During voir dire, defendant's counsel asked a prospective juror, "What
does it mean to you to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?"  The State
objected, arguing that the term is ambiguous and the jury could be confused
or misled by the inquiry.  The court sustained the objection, stating that
"any attempt to define or discuss . . . the charge, reasonable doubt, tends
to confuse more than inform" the jury.
      The nature and scope of voir dire is within the sound discretion of
the trial court, and decisions regarding voir dire will be reversed only
where the court abuses its discretion.  Parker v. Hoefer, 118 Vt. 1, 5,