Case Title: State v. Houle

Citation: 162 Vt. 41, 642 A.2d 1178

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-03-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_HOULE.92-327; 162 Vt. 41; 642 A.2d 1178

[Opinion Filed March 18, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied May 5, 1994]


 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 92-327


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 Mary Houle                                   December Term, 1993



 Linda Levitt, J.


 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Seth A. Steinzor, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

 Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney, office of the Defender General, and Lisa
    Werner, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.     Defendant appeals her convictions, after a jury trial,
 of two counts of simple assault and one count of unnecessary cruelty to a
 person in her care.  13 V.S.A. {{ 1023, 1305.  We affirm.
      Defendant was a licensed practical nurse at the Medical Center Hospital
 of Vermont.  The criminal charges against her, which stemmed from defend-
 ant's treatment of a stroke patient, alleged that defendant slapped the
 victim's legs repeatedly and shackled him to his bed at the wrists and
 ankles with his legs crossed.  By the time of trial, the victim had died of
 causes unrelated to the charged conduct.  During the trial, the State

 

 presented the testimony of an eyewitness who was present throughout the
 abusive incident, the victim's wife, employees of the hospital, and an
 investigator for the Office of Attorney General.  Defendant did not deny
 that she had restrained the victim, but claimed that her actions were
 necessary for the patient's protection and her own, and were neither
 assaultive nor cruel.  Defendant also produced the testimony of a nurse who
 was familiar with the victim's medical condition and care and his need for
 restraint.  This nurse was also used to impeach, through reputation
 evidence, the credibility of one of the State's witnesses.
      Defendant's claims of error all relate to the admission of evidence.
 Evidentiary rulings will not be disturbed on appeal "unless it clearly and
 affirmatively appears that the trial court withheld or abused its
 discretion."  State v. Catsam, 148 Vt. 366, 383,