Court Opinion

ID: 9706673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:49:06.518588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:27.842959
License: Public Domain

Allen, C.J.,
dissenting. I cannot agree with the result or the holding. The only evidence to support the charge was the fact that defendant had been driving at a speed of 103 miles per hour on Route 7, south of Manchester, as measured by a state trooper using radar. There was no evidence of the presence or potential presence of people or animals on the road, of access roads or hills or curves on the highway, or of cars within radar range when the trooper stopped defendant; it was 1:00 p.m. on a “beautiful” day, and the road was dry. Even accepting the proposition that speed alone can constitute a violation of the offense charged, there was absolutely no evidence introduced at trial that defendant operated his vehicle “in any manner to endanger or jeopardize the safety, life or property of a person.” 23 V.S.A. § 1091(a). A “reasonable likelihood” of such injury resulting from great speed does not equate with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That the fine might be inadequate or the assessment of points too low for the offense committed should not be concerns of this Court. These are issues to be addressed by the Legislature should it be so inclined.
I am authorized to say Associate Justice Gibson joins me in this dissent.