Court Opinion

ID: 9703107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:40:20.11861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:45.761410
License: Public Domain

Allen, C.J.,
concurring and dissenting. I concur in the majority’s opinion affirming the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress and its determination that defendant’s right to counsel was not violated. I dissent from the determination that the jury instruction issue was preserved.
While I believed and still believe that State v. Wheelock, 158 Vt. 302, 609 A.2d 972 (1992), was wrongly decided, it clearly and unequivocally stated that in all future cases “a succinct recitation of specific itemized” objections must be placed on the record following the instructions to the jury, and that the failure to do so is a waiver of an error even if the substance of the objection is made known before the *303charge. Id. at 306, 609 A.2d at 975. This case illustrates the mischief Wheelock created, but I am unaware of any exception to the doctrine of stare decisis which would permit us to deviate from Wheelock’s clear dictate.
I would affirm on all issues.