Court Opinion

ID: 9718408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:22:47.720815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:58.914210
License: Public Domain

Holden, C.J.,
concurring. I concur that the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. The evidence and the findings require this result. In my view, the interest of orderly appellate procedure requires our review to end there.
The record in this appeal affords no occasion to construe 12 V.S.A. § 1641a, — much less to test its validity in terms of constitutional dimension. The statute was not called into question in the hearing below; there was no mention of it.
When the defendant was called, she stated merely “I object to taking the stand but I will if the Court wants me to.” No incriminating evidence was given; none was called for. No privilege was claimed; there was no occasion for it.
No objection to the validity of a statute should be considered which is not presented in the record on appeal. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 55 L.Ed. 389, 424. Aside from consideration touching jurisdiction, it has been a firmly imbedded rule of this Court to limit appellate review to questions raised at the trial. Constitutional questions have not been decided unless essential to a final determination of the case. State v. Graves, 119 Vt. 205, 207, 122 A.2d 840; Hanley v. United Steel Workers, 119 Vt. 187, 192, 122 A.2d 872. The circumstance that the defendant appeared in her own behalf, without aid of counsel in a civil cause, affords no justification for departure from established rules of appellate procedure. Richardson v. Persons, 116 Vt. 413, 414, 77 A.2d 842.