Title: State v. Papazoni

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. 87-429


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 Darrell L. Papazoni                          December Term, 1990


 Ronald F. Kilburn, J.

 Gary S. Kessler, Supervising Appellate Prosecutor, Montpelier, for
   plaintiff-appellee

 Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate
   Defender, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Barney, C.J.
           (Ret.), Specially Assigned


      MORSE, J.   The sole issue on appeal from defendant's conviction of
 driving under the influence, death resulting, is the sufficiency of the
 evidence to support a jury finding that defendant's intoxicated condition
 was a proximate cause of the victim's death.  We affirm.
      In the early morning hours of February 1, 1986, defendant was driving
 west on Williston Road in South Burlington, a four-lane highway, when his
 car struck a pedestrian, head on in the left-hand lane as she was crossing
 the highway from driver's left to right.  The victim was intoxicated with a
 blood-alcohol content of .239%.  Evidence was admitted that the victim had
 become increasingly depressed and had made several suicide attempts during a
 two-week period before the accident.  On this evidence, a jury could
 reasonably conclude that the victim, either intentionally or recklessly, ran
 in front of the car.  The jury was instructed that a suicidal act would
 defeat the element of proximate cause and that in such a case defendant
 should be found not guilty.
      Although the evidence of causation -- the nexus between defendant's
 intoxicated state and the collision -- was not strong, taken in the light
 most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, there was
 sufficient evidence to fairly and reasonably support a finding of proximate
 cause beyond a reasonable doubt.  See State v. Norton, 147 Vt. 223, 229,