Title: State v. Callahan

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. 88-463


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Edward P. Callahan                           Unit No. 2, Grand Isle Circuit

                                             October Term, 1990


Ronald F. Kilburn, J.

Gary S. Kessler, Resource Attorney, Montpelier, and Bettina V. Buehler,
  Student Intern (On the Brief), South Royalton, for plaintiff-appellee

Michael Rose, St. Albans, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.  Defendant appeals from a conviction of driving while his
license was suspended (DLS).  23 V.S.A. { 674(a).  We affirm.
     Defendant raises four issues on appeal.  He contends that his Fifth
Amendment right not to be placed in jeopardy twice was violated; that the
trial court improperly placed on him the burden of proving his necessity
defense; that the State was permitted to introduce irrelevant and prejudi-
cial evidence; and that, during closing argument, the prosecutor unlawfully
commented on his failure to testify.
                                    I.
     Defendant argues that his Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in
jeopardy twice was violated because, in an earlier proceeding, the
prosecutor intentionally provoked him to move for a mistrial.  By failing to
raise this argument before the trial court, however, defendant waived it.
"[W]here the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the
defendant into moving for a mistrial . . . a defendant [may] raise the bar
of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the
first on his own motion."  Oregon v. Kennedy,