Title: State v. Stenson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Stensong (98-043); 169 Vt. 590; 738 A.2d 567

[Filed 24-Jun-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-043

                              APRIL TERM, 1999

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
Ryan Stenson	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 325-4-97 Cacr

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant appeals from his convictions for driving under the influence
  of alcohol (DUI) and  for retail theft.  He seeks to have the convictions
  reversed, arguing that: (1) the arresting officer  violated Vermont Rule of
  Criminal Procedure 3(a)(5) by questioning defendant at the police 
  barracks, (2)  the police should not have questioned defendant without an
  attorney present when  there had already been an initial consultation with
  an attorney, and (3) he did not knowingly and  intelligently waive his
  constitutional right to counsel at trial.  We affirm.

       Defendant argues that his conviction should be reversed because the
  arresting officer went  beyond the limited scope of a DUI arrest, as
  defined by Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure  3(a)(5), by questioning
  defendant at the police barracks.  In State v. Forcier we held that, where 
  a defendant was interrogated upon being stopped for a breath test, the
  statements made by  defendant during the interrogation violated Vermont
  Rule of Criminal Procedure 3(a)(5), which  limited the purpose of the stop
  to obtaining a sample of breath or blood.  See 162 Vt. 71, 77,