State v. Neisner, 16 A.3d 597

Defendant, an attorney, hit two motorcyclists, then fled the scene without stopping.
A constable later identified defendant from his license plate; defendant initially told trooper his wife drove.
Defendant and his wife were questioned; defendant later admitted he drove the car and his wife was not the driver.
Trooper suspected DUI; defendant had a .123% BAC on a preliminary test; wife was cited for leaving the scene.
Defendant was charged with leaving the scene, gross negligence, giving false information to a law enforcement officer, and impeding an officer.
Jury convicted on all counts except that the false information conviction is vacated due to double jeopardy concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy: false information and impeding charges	Grega requires separate elements; here false information is distinct.	False information and impeding punish the same conduct; multiple punishments prohibited.	Conviction for false information vacated; double jeopardy violated; other convictions affirmed.
Sufficiency of evidence to support impeding an officer	False accusation of wife hindered investigation; sufficient to impede.	He did not meaningfully hinder; silence alone cannot sustain impediment.	Evidence supports impediment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence	Braking abruptly after pulling in front showed gross deviation from care.	No excessive braking supported; mainly ordinary negligence.	Evidence supports gross negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Informational sufficiency: leaving scene information	Information and affidavit clearly charged leaving the scene; lack of 'immediately' not fatal.	Omission of 'immediately' creates ambiguity and possible self-incrimination issues.	Information sufficiently informed defendant of the charged offense; leaving scene conviction affirmed.

State v. Grega, 168 Vt. 363 (1998) (double jeopardy elements test for separate offenses)
Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980) (Blockburger interpretation of same offense)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not)
State v. Stone, 170 Vt. 496 (2000) (hindering requires unlawful act without legal right to do so)
State v. Loso, 151 Vt. 262 (1989) (information sufficiency assessed by common-sense notice plus affidavit)
State v. Kreth, 150 Vt. 406 (1988) (omissions in charging document; sufficiency to inform defense)
State v. Bradley, 145 Vt. 492 (1985) (notice and clarity requirements for information; defense preparation)