State v. Tristan Cameron, 163 A.3d 545

Background

On July 18, 2013, a 17-year-old defendant lost control on a blind, gravel curve, his car struck a farm truck, and his passenger later died; defendant suffered head lacerations.
Defendant was charged under 23 V.S.A. § 1091(b) with grossly negligent operation resulting in death and convicted after a three-day jury trial.
The State introduced testimony that the defendant had smoked marijuana the morning of the crash; that evidence came from a trooper recounting a post‑accident interview.
Defense counsel objected at trial on general evidentiary (relevance/403) grounds but did not move to suppress on Miranda/custody or involuntariness grounds; the trial court admitted the marijuana-use testimony.
The jury heard conflicting expert and eyewitness evidence about speed, lane position, and whether defendant fell asleep; the trial court denied defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial.
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed sufficiency of the evidence to submit gross negligence to the jury but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the marijuana-use testimony was admitted without expert foundation linking use to driving impairment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence	Evidence (eyewitnesss, trooper, crash reconstruction) supported a reasonable-jury verdict on gross negligence.	Insufficient—no proof defendant drove too fast, was in wrong lane, or acted grossly negligent.	Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to State, jury could find gross negligence.
Admissibility of trooper testimony that defendant used marijuana that morning	Relevant to assessing credibility, possible cause of impairment, and probative under Rule 403.	Testimony was prejudicial and lacked foundation; no expert linked marijuana use to impairment.	Reversed: admission was error because, absent expert testimony tying marijuana use to driving impairment, the evidence had no probative value and risked unfair prejudice.
Waiver/preservation of Miranda/custody/suppression claims	N/A (State argued trial counsel never made constitutional suppression motion).	Trial counsel preserved constitutional claims for appeal.	Waiver: defendant failed to move to suppress before trial and created inadequate record; constitutional suppression claims not preserved.
Juror presubmission discussions & instruction on reasonable doubt	Any juror discussions were harmless; instructions given later cured issue.	Pre-deliberation juror discussions about evidence and counsel prejudiced defendant; instruction on reasonable doubt was improper.	Court declined to order new trial for juror discussions (unlikely to reoccur); declined to decide the reasonable-doubt phrasing claim (largely unpreserved). Court cautioned trial judges to give pre-submission nondiscussion instructions.

Key Cases Cited

State v. O’Dell, 181 Vt. 475, 924 A.2d 87 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Carlin, 188 Vt. 602, 9 A.3d 312 (momentary inattention can support gross negligence when danger is elevated)
Burton v. Holden & Martin Lumber Co., 112 Vt. 17, 20 A.2d 99 (expert testimony required when lay reasoning would be mere speculation)
State v. Rifkin, 140 Vt. 472, 438 A.2d 1122 (expert required to connect drug use to impairment when proving inability to drive safely)
State v. Devine, 168 Vt. 566, 719 A.2d 861 (distinguished/overruled in part; factual differences discussed regarding marijuana evidence)
State v. Groce, 198 Vt. 74, 111 A.3d 1273 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)