Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. 

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2014-401

JULY TERM, 2015

State of Vermont } APPEALED FROM:

}

} Superior Court, Bennington Unit,

 v. } Criminal Division

}

}

Anthony Morabito } DOCKET NO. 1320-12-13 Bncr

Trial Judge: David A. Howard

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for leaving the scene of an accident, in 

violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1128(a). He contends the evidence was insufficient to establish that he 

failed to identify himself as soon as reasonably possible. We affirm.

The facts may be summarized as follows. On the morning of November 11, 2013, a 

resident of Observatory Street in the Town of Bennington contacted the police to report damage 

to his property. The property owner testified that he had been away the prior evening, and when 

he returned in the morning around 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., he observed that his lawn had been 

“plowed up” and that two neighbors’ lawns had also been damaged. When a police officer 

arrived, at about 11:00 a.m., the officer observed that the “property was damaged significantly,” 

and that other nearby properties had also suffered damage. The property owner pointed out to 

the officer a truck with a plow attached that was parked about 100 yards up the road. The truck 

had a note under the windshield which the officer photographed. The resident recalled that it 

indicated something like, “lost my brakes, be back to pick up the truck.” The photograph of the 

handwritten note shows two clear lines, stating: “Brakes are not working right. Tow truck 

Monday morning.” Although a small box appears to contain one additional handwritten word, 

no other contact information containing defendant’s full name, telephone, number or address is

visible anywhere on the note.

The officer testified that he recognized the truck as belonging to defendant, and radioed 

dispatch to inform defendant that the officer was on his way to his residence. After arriving, the 

officer asked defendant about what had happened to his truck the night before, and defendant 

told him that he had “lost his brakes.” After further questioning by the officer, and an ensuing

physical altercation with defendant and an acquaintance, defendant was arrested for leaving the 

scene of an accident and resisting arrest.1

 

1

 Because the court subsequently entered a not-guilty verdict on the charge of resisting 

arrest, we need not set forth any additional facts underlying that charge.
2

Defendant testified on his own behalf. He stated that he was driving down a steep hill on 

the night of November 10, 2013, when he lost his brakes and, in response, quickly turned into a 

driveway with a “steep incline” to use “the gravity force” to stop the truck before hitting the 

house. Defendant recalled that it was cold and snowy, and he concluded that he would leave a 

note and “deal with [it] in the morning.” Accordingly, defendant backed down out of the 

driveway, drove up the hill, parked the truck on a level area, left a note on the windshield, and 

walked home. Defendant claimed that he put his name and phone number on the note, which he 

surmised may have been washed away. He also stated that he knocked on the door of the 

residence, but nobody was home. When the officer arrived late the next morning, defendant 

recalled that he was having coffee with friends and cooking potato salad.

Following the one-day bench trial, the court entered its findings and conclusions on the 

record. The court found that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on the evening in 

question, and was knowingly involved in an accident that caused damage to the lawn of a 

residence. The court further found reasonable defendant’s explanation that he thought to knock 

on the door of the residence, but “debat[able] whether he somehow should have left a message 

on the door versus leaving a short note on his vehicle about how it was not running,” and equally 

“debat[able] whether he should have somehow “made his way to the police station” rather than 

going straight home. Whatever was reasonable “the night before,” however, the court found that 

defendant did not act within a reasonable time the next day, when he “hadn’t made any effort to 

call the police or to get back to the person” before the officer arrived, and found that this “was 

not a reasonable time period to ignore the situation.” Accordingly, the court entered a guilty 

verdict on the charge of leaving the scene of an accident.2 This appeal followed.

Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he failed to 

identify himself as soon as reasonably possible. The standard on review is whether the evidence, 

when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and excluding any modifying evidence, 

could fairly and reasonably convince a trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. State v. Turner, 2003 VT 73, ¶ 7, 175 Vt. 595 (mem.).

The statute at issue requires a driver involved in an accident causing property damage to 

“immediately stop and render any assistance reasonably necessary” and “give his or her name, 

residence, license number, and the name of the owner of the motor vehicle to any person who is 

injured or whose property is damaged and to any enforcement officer.” 23 V.S.A. § 1128(a). 

“We have held that the immediacy with which a defendant renders aid and provides information 

is a fact-specific inquiry, but that aid and identification should occur ‘as soon as reasonably 

possible.’ ” State v. Myers, 2011 VT 43, ¶ 37, 190 Vt. 29 (quoting State v. Severance, 120 Vt. 

268, 274 (1958)); see also State v. Loso, 151 Vt. 262, 266 (1989) (observing that, under the 

statute, “failure to . . . to give the required information at a time and manner reasonable under the 

circumstances is sufficient to convict”).

Defendant argues that he acted reasonably under the circumstances by knocking on the 

property owner’s door and by leaving a note on the truck. He asserts that these actions 

demonstrate that he did not leave the scene without trying to contact the owner or without 

leaving identifying information. The evidence does not support defendant’s claim, however, that 

the note contained his contact information. Neither the property owner nor the officer saw any 

 

2

 As noted at n.1, infra, the court went on to find defendant not guilty on the charge of 

resisting arrest.
3

contact information on the note; the photograph shows none; and the officer did not—contrary to 

defendant’s claim—identify defendant from information contained in the note, but rather from 

his own knowledge of defendant’s truck. Moreover, in the hours between the accident and the 

officer’s arrival at his door, defendant took no further action to contact the property owner or any 

action to contact law enforcement. Defendant’s decision to drink coffee with his friends and to 

cook potato salad the next morning before taking any further action relative to the accident belies 

any claim that defendant acted “as soon as reasonably possible” to report the accident.

Thus, under the circumstances, the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s 

conclusion that defendant failed to take reasonable steps to contact the property owner and the 

police as soon as reasonably possible. Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the judgment.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________________

Marilyn S. Skoglund, Associate Justice

_______________________________________

Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

_______________________________________

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice