 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Simoneau8/29/2003
uling. We disagree that defendant relies upon the proper standards. The trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen the evidence in connection with a criminal pretrial motion and to reconsider its pretrial order. See *1291 State v. Tongue, 170 Vt. 409, 414, 753 A.2d 356, 359 (2000). The court is not required to reconsider its ruling whenever new facts are presented; instead, it is "better practice for the court to reconsider a pretrial ruling 'where serious grounds arise as to the correctness of the ... ruling.' " Id. (quoting State v. Bruno, 157 Vt. 6, 8, 595 A.2d 272, 274 (1991)). We have stated that trial court reconsideration of pretrial suppression rulings should be the exception, not the rule. Id. Like this case, Tongue involved a renewed motion to suppress made in advance of trial and alleging new facts not presented in the original motion.
38. The trial court's decision denying the renewed motion was fully consistent with Tongue. The court analyzed whether serious grounds had been raised that showed the incorrectness of the original decision and concluded that serious grounds had not been raised given all the evidence. Consistent with our holding that reconsideration of a motion to suppress should be the exception in order to ensure judicial economy, the court faulted defendant for failing to present the new evidence at the time of the hearing on the original motion to suppress. We conclude that the court acted within its discretion in denying the defendant's renewed motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|