State v. Mable

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Mable

449 A.2d 903, 141 Vt. 339, 1982 Vt. LEXIS 531

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 8, 1982

DocketNo. 109-81

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 449 A.2d 903 (State v. Mable) 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. Mable, 449 A.2d 903, 141 Vt. 339, 1982 Vt. LEXIS 531 (Vt. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a conviction, after trial by jury, of driving while intoxicated in violation of 23 V.S.A. [340]*340§ 1201(a) (2). Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.

In passing on the denial of a V.R.Cr.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, we are required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Driscoll, 137 Vt. 89, 100, 400 A.2d 971, 978 (1979); State v. Girouard, 135 Vt. 123, 135, 373 A.2d 836, 840 (1977). The pivotal issue is then whether that evidence fairly and reasonably tends to support the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We believe that it does.

On December 1, 1980, defendant’s automobile was stopped by a South Burlington police officer for exceeding the posted speed limit by some eighteen miles per hour. The officer testified that defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot, and his breath smelled strongly of alcoholic beverage. Moreover, the evidence establishes that defendant had difficulty performing a so-called field sobriety test, became abusive when arrested for driving while intoxicated, and twice refused to submit to an alcohol breath test. Defendant introduced evidence attempting to show that he had consumed only a small amount of beer and that his appearance and physical reactions were attributable to long hours of painting without protective eye cover.

Essentially, defendant asks this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury which heard the testimony and had the opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. This we will not do. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we are convinced that the State’s evidence fairly and reasonably supports the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Baldwin, 140 Vt. 501, 516, 438 A.2d 1135, 1143 (1981); State v. Driscoll, supra. Accordingly, we find no error in the denial of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a conviction, after trial by jury, of driving while intoxicated in violation of 23 V.S.A. [340]*340§ 1201(a) (2). Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.

In passing on the denial of a V.R.Cr.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, we are required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Driscoll, 137 Vt. 89, 100, 400 A.2d 971, 978 (1979); State v. Girouard, 135 Vt. 123, 135, 373 A.2d 836, 840 (1977). The pivotal issue is then whether that evidence fairly and reasonably tends to support the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We believe that it does.

On December 1, 1980, defendant’s automobile was stopped by a South Burlington police officer for exceeding the posted speed limit by some eighteen miles per hour. The officer testified that defendant’s speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot, and his breath smelled strongly of alcoholic beverage. Moreover, the evidence establishes that defendant had difficulty performing a so-called field sobriety test, became abusive when arrested for driving while intoxicated, and twice refused to submit to an alcohol breath test. Defendant introduced evidence attempting to show that he had consumed only a small amount of beer and that his appearance and physical reactions were attributable to long hours of painting without protective eye cover.

Essentially, defendant asks this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the jury which heard the testimony and had the opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses. This we will not do. After thoroughly reviewing the record, we are convinced that the State’s evidence fairly and reasonably supports the jury’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Baldwin, 140 Vt. 501, 516, 438 A.2d 1135, 1143 (1981); State v. Driscoll, supra. Accordingly, we find no error in the denial of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 A.2d 903, 141 Vt. 339, 1982 Vt. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mable-vt-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack