the results. She explained that the standard-out-of-range error indicates that the “simulator vapor ... is not reading within the five percent accuracy required.” Therefore, her opinion was that tests taken after receiving such an error message could be compromised. She further opined that there was some question as to this particular machine’s accuracy based on the machine’s history of error messages and the difference between the two results. Given that defendant’s expert provided opinions specific to the instrument used to obtain defendant’s test results and about the particular circumstances surrounding collection of defendant’s tests, we con.1ude that there was sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Cf. State v. Wells, 172 Vt. 603, 606, 779 A.2d 680, 684 (2001) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). We cannot uphold the trial court’s con.1usion
holding defendant failed to rebut statutory presumption where evidence was not particular to the facts and circumstances of the case holding that intervening conduct may be used to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness holding that a statutory presumption is a rule of law requiring a trier of fact to reach a particular conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case holding that to rebut presumption plaintiff need only allege specific facts not plead evidence