Title: State v. Stevens

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. 88-039


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Cedric V. Stevens                            Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                             February Term, 1990


Edward J. Cashman, J.

Pamela Hall Johnson and Gary S. Kessler, Department of State's Attorneys,
   Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and Henry Hinton and William A.
   Nelson, Appellate Defenders, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     PECK, J.   Defendant appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of
being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway while under
the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI), in violation of 23 V.S.A. {
1201(a)(2). (FN1) We affirm.
     On February 25, 1987, at about 1:45 a.m., a Vermont State Police
officer saw a vehicle off an exit ramp on Interstate 89.  He approached the
vehicle, which was straddling a snowbank on the side of the road, and
observed defendant standing by the rear wheels of the car.  Defendant was
kicking snow out from under the wheels, and the car's engine was running.
No one else was present.  Defendant told the officer that the vehicle was a
rental car, and when the officer asked him if anyone else was with him,
defendant replied that he was "the only one."
     The officer asked defendant to get into the police cruiser.  As they
walked toward the cruiser, the officer had to steady defendant, and noticed
that defendant had a strong odor of intoxicants on his breath.  The officer
called a wrecker to remove the disabled car from the highway, and took
defendant to the police station where he was processed for DUI.  Defendant
refused to perform any dexterity tests, and also refused to submit to a
breath test.
     On appeal, defendant contends that the State's evidence was inadequate
to prove that he was in actual physical control of the vehicle.  Defendant
also challenges the jury instructions, and maintains that evidence that he
refused to take a breath test or perform dexterity tests was erroneously
admitted.
     In reviewing a conviction, we must decide if the evidence is sufficient
on each element of the crime charged to convince a reasonable trier of fact
that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Jackson v.
Virginia,