Title: State v. Gemler

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Gemler (2002-530); 176 Vt. 257; 844 A.2d 757

2004 VT 3

[Filed 16-Jan-2004]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 11-Feb-2004]

       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.

                                  2004 VT 3

                                No. 2002-530

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

  Robert Gemler	                                 September Term, 2003

  M. Patricia Zimmerman, J.

  Thomas M. Kelly, Washington County Deputy State's Attorney, Barre, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  George H. Ostler and Christopher A. Dall of DesMeules, Olmstead & Ostler,
    Norwich, for Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   In this appeal of his conviction for driving
  a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, defendant
  claims the trial court erred in 1) denying defendant's pre-trial motion to
  suppress statements elicited from defendant while in circumstances that
  required Miranda warnings, and in consequently denying his motion to
  dismiss for lack of prima facie case; 2) admitting hearsay evidence highly
  prejudicial to defendant; and 3) in denying defendant's motion for a
  mistrial after a police officer testified about matters subject to
  exclusion pursuant to a motion in limine.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  On July 11, 2000, at about 8:00 p.m., a Vermont State Police
  officer was flagged down by a motorist.  The motorist complained that a
  green Chevy truck with New Hampshire plates was being operated erratically
  on the northbound lane of I-89, between exits 9 and 10.   The police
  officer radioed the Waterbury Police Department, and passed along the
  complaint and the description of the vehicle.  The officer did not identify
  the informant.

       ¶  3.  Two police officers responded to the complaint, Waterbury
  officer Jason Billings, and Washington County Deputy Sheriff Scott
  Patterson.  Patterson, traveling south on I-89, saw the suspect truck
  traveling north.  He testified that the operator had dark hair and was
  wearing a pink shirt and a baseball cap, and that there was nobody else in
  the truck.  Patterson radioed Billings to look for the vehicle, as it was
  apparently leaving the highway at Exit 10, Waterbury.  At approximately
  8:13 p.m., Billings located a green Chevy truck with New Hampshire tags in
  the parking lot of the Holiday Inn in Waterbury.
   
       ¶  4.  When Billings entered the lobby, he found defendant talking
  to the clerk.  Billings asked defendant whether he was the owner of the
  green truck.  Defendant responded by asking the officer why he wanted to
  know.  When Billings told defendant about the complaint, defendant refused
  to answer whether he was the owner of the vehicle.  Billings noticed that
  defendant had trouble focusing, his speech was mumbled and slurred, and his
  eyes were watery and bloodshot.   Defendant also refused to produce
  identification.  Officer Patterson arrived at the hotel shortly thereafter. 
  He noted that defendant was wearing a pink shirt and had dark hair, like
  the person he had seen operating the truck.  Patterson detected a strong
  odor of alcohol coming from defendant and observed that he was unsteady. 
  Patterson warned defendant that he would be placed in custody if he did not
  provide identification.  Defendant then produced a driver's license.  In
  response to a question from an officer, defendant denied drinking and
  driving, stating, "I drove up and drank at [the hotel] bar."  Because the
  officers suspected defendant of operating the vehicle while intoxicated,
  defendant was asked to perform dexterity tests, which he failed.  Defendant
  was then taken into custody and transported to the Vermont State Police
  barracks for processing.  Although he refused to submit to an evidentiary
  test, defendant stated, "Off the record, I drove up from New Hampshire,
  stopped at a bar in White River, and had seven Budweiser beers.  I know
  that [you are] doing your job and you will get me."

       ¶  5.  After arraignment, defendant filed a motion to suppress and
  dismiss.  The court granted the motion to suppress the statements given
  while defendant was at the station, because, although apparently voluntary,
  the police officers were not present at the hearing to explain the
  circumstances in which the statements were made.  Defendant filed a second
  motion requesting the suppression of statements made while he was still at
  the Holiday Inn.  The trial court refused to suppress those statements,
  rejecting defendant's theory that an officer's request to a defendant to
  "produce identification or be placed in custody" escalated an investigative
  detention into a custodial interrogation.  The court also denied
  defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case, in which
  defendant argued that the State could not prove operation, holding that the
  statement "I drove up and drank at the bar" was sufficient evidence of
  operation.  At trial, defendant's theory of the case was that defendant's
  employee drove the truck to the hotel's parking lot, got in an unidentified
  woman's car, and left defendant alone in the truck.
   
       ¶  6.  Defendant first claims that the court erred in denying his
  motion to suppress the pre-arrest statements he made to the officers at the
  Holiday Inn because the statements were the fruit of an unlawful
  interrogation.  According to defendant, when police officers gave him an
  ultimatum to produce identification or be arrested, they placed him "in
  custody."  Defendant asserts that subsequent questioning regarding whether
  he had been drinking and driving, without giving him the requisite
  warnings, constituted a violation of defendant's Fifth Amendment rights
  under Miranda v. Arizona,