Title: State v. Zumbo

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. 90-073


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Frank M. Zumbo                               Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                             March Term, 1991


Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

William Sorrell, Chittenden County State's Attorney, Burlington, Gary S.
   Kessler, Supervising Appellate Prosecutor, Montpelier, and Geoffrey M.
   Coan, Student Intern, Vermont Law School (On the Brief), for plaintiff-
   appellee

Jane Watson and Robert W. Zeuner of Bauer, Gravel & Watson, Burlington, for
   defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.   Defendant Frank Zumbo appeals from his conviction for
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor,
in violation of 23 V.S.A. { 1201(a)(2), arguing that (1) his constitutional
and statutory rights were violated by the jury selection process, (2) the
trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to suppress, (3)
the court erred in allowing a police officer to testify that in his opinion
defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, (4) the court
erred in failing to instruct the jury on the permissive inference under 23
V.S.A. { 1204(a)(1), and (5) the court erred in using the Storrs jury
instruction.  We affirm.
                                   I.
     Defendant first contends that Chittenden County's jury selection
procedures violate his federal and Vermont constitutional rights, as well as
his statutory rights.  The instant case is one of forty-four previous inter-
locutory appeals presenting the same argument; forty-three cases, including
the instant case, were dismissed on grounds that the interlocutory appeals
had been improvidently granted.  See State v. Jenne, __ Vt. __, __, 591 A.2d 85, 88 (1991).  The other case -- was addressed on the merits, and
for the reasons expressed therein, we reject defendant's contention.  See
id. at __, 591 A.2d  at 88-91.
                                   II.
                                   A.
     Defendant next argues that State v. Senecal, 145 Vt. 554, 558,