Opinion ID: 3132325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Grossly Negligent Operation

Text: ¶ 6. Defendant first challenges the court’s denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. According to defendant, the State needed to show that he “exercised no care due to others in a situation where there is great potential for immediate danger.” He argues that his conduct did not meet this standard. Defendant also asserts that the facts here are less egregious than other cases where we have upheld convictions for grossly negligent operation. ¶ 7. On review of the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for acquittal, “we must consider whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State and excluding the modifying evidence, is sufficient to fairly and reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Devine, 168 Vt. 566, 566, 719 A.2d 861, 862 (1998) (mem.). ¶ 8. To establish defendant’s guilt, the State needed to show that defendant operated his vehicle on a public highway in a grossly negligent way. 23 V.S.A. § 1091(b)(1). “The standard for a conviction” under § 1091(b) is “gross negligence, examining whether the person engaged in conduct which involved a gross deviation from the care that a reasonable person would have exercised in that situation.” Id. § 1091(b)(2). The statute provides a heightened penalty if the grossly negligent operation results in “serious bodily injury . . . or death of any person other than the operator.” Id. § 1091(b)(3). Negligent operation, by contrast, requires the State to prove only “ordinary negligence, examining whether the person breached a duty to exercise ordinary care.” Id. § 1091(a)(2). ¶ 9. In distinguishing these two crimes, “we have said that gross negligence amounts to a failure to exercise even a slight degree of care, and that it requires more than an error in judgment, momentary inattention, or loss of presence of mind.” State v. Valyou, 2006 VT 105, ¶ 5, 180 Vt. 627, 910 A.2d 922 (mem.) (quotation omitted). We have recognized the difficulty in defining “gross negligence” with any precision, and, accordingly, have concluded that “the 3 presence or absence of gross negligence turns upon the particular factual circumstances of each case, and therefore rests within the special province of the jury.” Id. (quotation and brackets omitted). If “reasonable minds cannot differ,” however, “the court can decide the question as a matter of law.” State v. Free, 170 Vt. 605, 606, 749 A.2d 622, 624 (2000) (mem.). ¶ 10. We have not held, as defendant posits, that grossly negligent operation exists only when a driver exercises “no care” in a situation where “there is great potential for immediate danger.” Defendant does not cite any cases in support of this proposition, but appears to rely on language from State v. Carlin, a grossly-negligent-operation case that involved a driver’s momentary inattention to the roadway. 2010 VT 79, 188 Vt. 602, 9 A.3d 312 (mem.). We held in Carlin that there are circumstances under which a driver’s momentary inattention to the roadway can be gross negligence, including where “that inattention occurs in a place where there is great potential for immediate danger.” Id. ¶ 9. That is not the situation here. ¶ 11. In this case, the court instructed the jury, over the State’s objection, that the State needed to show that defendant “disregarded a risk of injury or death” and that “the risk was such that, considering the nature and purpose of the defendant’s conduct, and the circumstances known to him, the defendant’s failure to perceive it was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.” Defendant does not challenge this standard on appeal. Assuming without deciding that the jury instruction was correct and that the State needed to prove that defendant “disregarded a risk of injury or death,” the State met its burden here.1 1 The trial court based its jury instruction on Free, 170 Vt. at 606, 749 A.2d at 624, a case involving a charge of grossly negligent operation with death resulting. In Free, we recognized that gross negligence is defined by statute as “conduct which involved a gross deviation from the care that a reasonable person would have exercised in that situation.” Id. (citing 23 V.S.A. § 1091(b)(2)). We observed that “[t]he Legislature adopted this language to implement our holding in State v. Beayon, 158 Vt. 133, 605 A.2d 527 (1992).” Id. We then discussed the holding of Beayon, which was what the trial court used for its jury instruction in the instant case. 4 ¶ 12. As described by the trial court, the evidence showed that defendant, seized by anger, chased his neighbor and passed him on a road that was barely as wide as defendant’s car turned sideways. He then turned abruptly so that his car sat across the roadway, leaving four tire marks. Defendant stopped just in front of the neighbor, and the neighbor had to put on his brakes to avoid hitting defendant and defendant’s car. The jury could reasonably conclude that this conduct put the neighbor at risk of injury, regardless of the neighbor’s ability to stop in time to avoid a collision. We agree with the trial court that this was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant’s conduct grossly deviated from the standard of care that a reasonable driver would have exercised under similar circumstances. ¶ 13. None of defendant’s arguments persuade us otherwise. Defendant asserts that he was not grossly negligent because it was legal for him to pass the neighbor on the left, and even though he turned his car sideways and stopped abruptly in the middle of the road, the neighbor did not testify that he had to brake suddenly to avoid a dangerous collision. Defendant also notes Beayon was a vehicular homicide case decided under a prior version of § 1091(c). At that time, the statute contained no express mens rea requirement. Under the old law, a person was subject to a fifteen-year prison term if he or she, while engaged in a traffic violation, caused the death of any person as a result of the violation. See Beayon, 158 Vt. at 134 n.2, 605 A.2d at 528 n.2 (quoting 23 V.S.A. § 1091(c) (1990)). We concluded that because § 1091(c) imposed the same penalty as Vermont’s manslaughter statute, “a violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1091(c) require[d], at a minimum, a mens rea of criminal negligence.” Id. at 135-36, 605 A.2d at 528. Thus, in Beayon we held—under a prior version of the statute and in a case that resulted in someone’s death—that the State must show: (1) that the defendant “disregarded a risk of death or injury,” id. at 135, 605 A.2d at 528 (quotation omitted), and (2) that the risk was “of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of [the defendant’s] conduct and the circumstances known to [the defendant], involve[d] a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” Id. (quotation and original alternations omitted). As we recognized in Free, “[i]t is this latter language upon which the Legislature seized in formulating the standard of negligence required for a § 1091(b) conviction.” 170 Vt. at 606, 749 A.2d at 624 (quotation omitted and emphasis added). The statute now contains a “standard for a conviction for grossly negligent operation.” 23 V.S.A. § 1091(b)(2). To be subject to a heightened penalty under 23 V.S.A. § 1091(b), the State must show that a defendant’s grossly negligent operation caused the death of another person. Death is thus a material element in a vehicular-homicide case. We need not decide here if the State always must show a risk of death or injury in grossly-negligent-operation cases where death did not result from the operation. 5 that he did not push the neighbor off the road, run into him, or drive into oncoming traffic. Defendant essentially challenges the jury’s assessment of the evidence. We have recognized that “[t]he presence or absence of gross negligence turns upon the particular factual circumstances of each case, and therefore rests within the special province of the jury.” State v. Koch, 171 Vt. 515, 516, 760 A.2d 505, 506 (2000) (mem.). Although defendant did not push the neighbor off the road or drive into oncoming traffic, there was still sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant’s actions grossly deviated from the standard of care a reasonable driver would have exercised. ¶ 14. Defendant’s comparison of his case to other gross-negligence cases is unavailing. We have repeatedly recognized, particularly in the gross-negligence context, that each case turns on its own facts. See, e.g., Langdon-Davies v. Stalbird, 122 Vt. 56, 57, 163 A.2d 873, 874-75 (1960) (“[D]ecided cases are of little assistance in determining the existence of gross negligence under the evidence in a particular case. Each case turns almost entirely on its own peculiar factual situation.”). Here, there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find defendant guilty, and defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal was therefore properly denied.