Title: State v. Blouin

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Blouin  (97-053); 168 Vt. 119; 716 A.2d 826

[Filed 26-Jun-1998]

       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. 97-053

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

Raymond G. Blouin                            October Term, 1997

Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

Robert L. Sand, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney, Montpelier, for
  Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.   The State brings this interlocutory appeal from a
  district court order excluding evidence in a prosecution for driving under
  the influence, third offense, in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2).  The
  court excluded evidence of (1) defendant's refusal to perform a roadside
  sobriety test, and (2) defendant's response to the question of whether he
  had "burped, belched or vomited" during the fifteen minutes prior to
  administration of an evidentiary breath test.  The State contends that no
  constitutional, statutory or other rule of law requires exclusion of the
  evidence.  We agree and therefore reverse.

       In September of 1995, after observing a vehicle being driven with a
  burned out headlight, a Vermont State Police trooper effected a stop of
  defendant's vehicle, then approached on foot. The trooper detected the odor
  of alcohol emanating from defendant's car, noticed that his eyes were
  watery and bloodshot, that his speech was slurred, and that a twelve-pack
  of beer and several empty containers lay on the passenger side floor.  The
  trooper asked if he had been drinking, to which defendant responded,
  "[y]es, a couple of beers."  The trooper then asked e HGN test involves
  moving an object such as a pen across the subject's field of vision to
  observe the manner in which the subject's eyes follow the object.  As the
  subject follows the object, an overabundance of eye twitching indicates
  possible intoxication.  See 1 R. Erwin, Defense of Drunk Driving Cases, §
  10.04[5], at 10-18-10-19 (1997). The dissent attempts to distinguish Muniz
  from the instant case by characterizing the incriminating utterances in
  Muniz as "voluntary."  They were voluntary only "in the sense that they
  were not elicited in response to custodial interrogation," but instead came
  in response to "the limited and focused inquiries" necessarily "`attendant
  to'" legitimate police procedure. Muniz, 496 U.S.  at 603-05.  That is
  precisely the status of defendant's answer to the burp question.

 

  defendant to step out of the car and perform a horizontal gaze nystagmus
  ("HGN") test.(FN1)  As the trooper later testified, defendant "wouldn't
  follow the pen with his eyes, he kept moving his head, so I was unable to
  do that test."  Following this refusal to perform the HGN test, the trooper
  requested no further physical performance tests.  The trooper then
  administered an Alcosensor test, results of which indicated alcohol in
  defendant's system.  Defendant was then taken to police barracks, placed in
  a processing room and then advised of his rights according to the standard
  Vermont State Police "DUI Processing Form."  As part of processing,
  defendant was advised of his constitutional rights under Miranda v.
  Arizona,