{"id":494,"date":"2012-07-27T01:21:30","date_gmt":"2012-07-27T01:21:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=494"},"modified":"2025-01-09T19:03:02","modified_gmt":"2025-01-09T19:03:02","slug":"dls","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=494","title":{"rendered":"DLS"},"content":{"rendered":"<ul>\n<li>CR31-051.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS31-051.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Driving with License Suspended or Revoked<\/a>, 23 V.S.A. \u00a7 674(a) (01\/09\/25)<\/li>\n<li>CR31-056.\u00a0\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS31-056.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Driving with License Suspended or Revoked (DUI)<\/a>, 23 V.S.A. \u00a7 674(b) (01\/09\/25)<\/li>\n<li>CR31-061.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vtjuryinstructions.org\/criminal\/MS31-061.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">DLS-Subsequent Offense<\/a> (Phase II Enhancement) (11\/21\/06)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>Reporter&#8217;s Note<\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Notice<\/strong>. The statute, 23 V.S.A. \u00a7 674, does not require notice or knowledge of suspension on the part of the offender, and actual notice is not required.\u00a0 <u>State v. Hebert<\/u>, 124 Vt. 377, 379 (1964).\u00a0 The required notice may be satisfied by evidence that the written notice had been sent at least three days earlier, by registered mail or by certified mail.\u00a0 The statute at 23 V.S.A. \u00a7 204 states that a <em>suspension<\/em> shall be deemed to be in effect three days after deposit in the United States mails, and a reasonable interpretation of that statute is that a <em>notice<\/em> will be effective three days after mailing.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Supreme Court approved an instruction on notice, similar to the model instruction, in <u>State v. Cattanach<\/u>, 129 Vt. 57 (1970).\u00a0 Where the commissioner had mailed the notice more than three days prior to the offense, \u201c[t]he defendant\u2019s failure to receive delivery of the notice of suspension is not sufficient to bar his conviction for operating a motor vehicle after the revocation went into full force and effect.\u201d\u00a0 <u>Id<\/u>. at 61.\u00a0 A driver has a continuing duty to inform the commissioner of any change of address.\u00a0 <u>State v. Chicoine<\/u>, 154 Vt. 653 (1990).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Although \u00a7 204 suggests that notice of the suspension will be effective three days after mailing by first class mail, the above cases involved convictions based on certified mail.\u00a0 It is not clear whether mailing by first class mail would sustain a conviction.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Reason for Suspension<\/strong>. Note that the statute provides for certain mandatory minimum sentencing terms if the license was suspended or revoked for a DUI as compared with suspensions for other reasons. <em>Compare<\/em> \u00a7 674(a) <em>with<\/em> \u00a7 674(b). As such, the model instruction contemplates that the reason for the suspension or revocation is an element of the offense, but the state need not reprove the merits of the underlying suspension or revocation. <em>See<\/em> <u>State v. Longe<\/u>, 170 Vt. 35, 41 (1999) (holding that evidence of defendant\u2019s failure to satisfy requirements of alcohol and driving education program under 23 V.S.A. \u00a7\u00a01209a was sufficient to establish reason for underlying license suspension in \u00a7\u00a0674(b) prosecution and that \u201cthe instructions, when read in their entirety, required the jury to find that defendant\u2019s license was suspended for failing to comply with \u00a7 1209a\u201d); <u>State v. Putnam<\/u>, 137 Vt. 410, 413, (1979) (defendant cannot collaterally attack underlying license suspension in DLS prosecution except as to jurisdictional issues; <u>State v. Mohr<\/u>, 146 Vt. 193, 194 (1985) (same); <u>State v. Bacon<\/u>, 137 Vt. 414, 415 (1979) (same).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Courts should tailor the language of this element to fit the particular circumstances of the case. Bifurcation of the prior conviction that resulted in the license suspension or revocation may not be proper if the remaining elements would not establish a complete crime. <em>See<\/em> <u>State v. Brillon<\/u>, 2010 VT 25, \u00b6 28, 187 Vt. 444 (\u201cWithout a complete crime to present to the jury, bifurcation may result in confusion for jurors and may influence the results of the initial phase of trial.\u201d).<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Permissive Inference<\/strong>. As part of the State\u2019s case, \u201cthe court shall accept as evidence a printout attested to by the law enforcement officer as the person\u2019s motor vehicle record showing convictions and resulting license suspensions.\u201d 23 V.S.A. \u00a7\u00a0674(g). That record \u201cshall establish a permissive inference\u201d that the defendant \u201cwas under suspension on the dates and time periods set forth in the record.\u201d <u>Id<\/u>. A certified copy from the Department of Motor Vehicles is not required to establish the permissive inference. <u>Id<\/u>. However, the jury is not required to draw any inference from the printout.<\/p>\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CR31-051.\u00a0 Driving with License Suspended or Revoked, 23 V.S.A. \u00a7 674(a) (01\/09\/25) CR31-056.\u00a0\u00a0Driving with License Suspended or Revoked (DUI), 23 V.S.A. \u00a7 674(b) (01\/09\/25) CR31-061.\u00a0 DLS-Subsequent Offense (Phase II Enhancement) (11\/21\/06) Reporter&#8217;s Note Notice. The statute, 23 V.S.A. \u00a7 674, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/?page_id=494\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":490,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-494","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/494","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=494"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/494\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1790,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/494\/revisions\/1790"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/490"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vtjuryinstructions.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}