Vermont v. CameronAnnotate this Case
Defendant Tristan Cameron appealed his conviction for grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle resulting in the death of a passenger. He argued on appeal that there was not enough evidence to convict him, that testimony regarding his marijuana use should have been excluded, that prejudicial juror discussions occurred, and that the trial court’s instruction to the jury lowered the standard of proof required for conviction. Because the Vermont Supreme Court found that the State presented enough evidence to create a question for the jury, the Court affirmed on the first issue. But because, absent expert testimony, the jury was left to speculate that the State’s evidence provided the necessary link between defendant’s marijuana use and the grossly negligent operation charge, the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the second issue.