State v. Laroque

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Laroque

546 A.2d 798, 149 Vt. 662, 1988 Vt. LEXIS 73

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedApril 20, 1988

DocketNo. 86-105

StatusPublished

This text of 546 A.2d 798 (State v. Laroque) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Laroque, 546 A.2d 798, 149 Vt. 662, 1988 Vt. LEXIS 73 (Vt. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Following a jury trial in this misdemeanor prosecution, the trial judge granted defendant’s motion for a new trial. He then sua sponte dismissed the information under the authority of V.R.Cr.P. 48(b).

The State filed a motion requesting the trial court to strike the order of dismissal and to grant permission to appeal. This motion was denied. The State then filed a motion for leave to appeal in this Court, which was granted.

“If the court over objection of the prosecution dismisses an . . . information under [V.R.Cr.P. 48(b)(2)], it shall state, on the record, its findings of fact and reasons for the dismissal.” V.R.Cr.P. 48(c). Here, the trial court stated by way of conclusion its reasons for the dismissal. However, the record is completely devoid of any findings of fact which are mandated by the Rule. As the Reporter’s Notes to V.R.Cr.P. 48 point out, “a record of the findings of fact” is required “[i]n order to insure against arbitrary dismissal.” It follows that the Rule contemplates appellate review of such dismissals.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Following a jury trial in this misdemeanor prosecution, the trial judge granted defendant’s motion for a new trial. He then sua sponte dismissed the information under the authority of V.R.Cr.P. 48(b).

The State filed a motion requesting the trial court to strike the order of dismissal and to grant permission to appeal. This motion was denied. The State then filed a motion for leave to appeal in this Court, which was granted.

“If the court over objection of the prosecution dismisses an . . . information under [V.R.Cr.P. 48(b)(2)], it shall state, on the record, its findings of fact and reasons for the dismissal.” V.R.Cr.P. 48(c). Here, the trial court stated by way of conclusion its reasons for the dismissal. However, the record is completely devoid of any findings of fact which are mandated by the Rule. As the Reporter’s Notes to V.R.Cr.P. 48 point out, “a record of the findings of fact” is required “[i]n order to insure against arbitrary dismissal.” It follows that the Rule contemplates appellate review of such dismissals.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 A.2d 798, 149 Vt. 662, 1988 Vt. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-laroque-vt-1988.