State v. David Wisowaty, 128 A.3d 876

On Aug. 10, 2013, Wisowaty rode a motorcycle south on Dorset Street (40 mph limit) and collided with Yee’s truck as Yee made a left turn from a private club driveway into Dorset Street. The collision occurred when Yee’s truck occupied much of the southbound lane.
The motorcycle traveled across roadway, bike path, and grass and came to rest ~150 ft from point of impact; the rider separated and slid before coming to rest near the bike. Exhibit 14 (diagram) and a separate measured exhibit were used at trial; Exhibit 14 was not to scale.
State charged Wisowaty with negligent operation (23 V.S.A. §1091(a)) and excessive speed (23 V.S.A. §1097). Bench trial produced competing reconstruction analyses from State and defense experts and testimony from both principals.
State expert worked backward from the motorcycle’s final rest point using assumed friction coefficients across multiple surfaces and assumed continuous maximum braking, producing ~99 mph.
Defense expert used d = r * t, measuring distance from the point defendant could first be seen to point of impact and estimating the time by estimating how far and how fast Yee traveled, producing ~48 mph.
Trial judge combined portions of both experts’ methods, adjusted inputs (including deriving a distance using the Pythagorean Theorem on Exhibit 14), and found defendant’s top speed between 75–84 mph; defendant moved for acquittal/new trial and lost below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on speed to support convictions	State: expert reconstruction (friction-based) and judge’s adopted calculations show speed well above limit	Wisowaty: expert showed far lower speed; judge impermissibly relied on his own unsourced calculations and speculative measurements	Reversed: evidence insufficient to support convictions; judge’s speed findings were clearly erroneous and speculative
Permissibility of judge’s use of own calculations/measurements	State: judge as factfinder may weigh evidence and draw inferences, use both experts as he did	Wisowaty: judge improperly acted as an expert, introduced untested calculations and inputs the defense could not cross-examine	Court: judge bridged evidentiary gaps with speculation (impermissible); cannot supply missing evidentiary inputs
Use of Pythagorean Theorem by factfinder to derive distances	State: judge reasonably relied on diagram to infer distances	Wisowaty: diagram not to scale and a key point (Yee’s car position) lacked measured data	Court: use of Pythagorean Theorem here was unsupported because right angle and shorter sides were not reliably established; resulting distance was conjectural
Remedy (new trial vs. acquittal)	State: errors (if any) warrant new trial	Wisowaty: insufficient evidence requires acquittal	Court: insufficiency of evidence—judge attempted to salvage verdict—so acquittal required

State v. Birchard, 5 A.3d 879 (Vt. 2010) (standard for reversing exercise of trial court’s discretion)
State v. Vulley, 70 A.3d 940 (Vt. 2013) (de novo review of denial of judgment of acquittal)
State v. Derouchie, 440 A.2d 146 (Vt. 1981) (sufficiency review framework — evidence viewed in light most favorable to State)
State v. Albarelli, 19 A.3d 130 (Vt. 2011) (evidence that leaves guilt dependent on conjecture is insufficient)
People v. Bleakley, 508 N.E.2d 672 (N.Y. 1987) (articulating permissible inferences standard for factfinder)
State v. Durenleau, 652 A.2d 981 (Vt. 1994) (factfinder may draw rational inferences but cannot bridge gaps with speculation)
State v. Driscoll, 400 A.2d 971 (Vt. 1979) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings other than ultimate guilt)
State v. Spooner, 60 A.3d 640 (Vt. 2012) (deference to trier-of-fact on weight and sufficiency of evidence)