Case Title: State v. Gilman

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-051



 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
 Timothy Gilman                               Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

                                              February Term, 1992


 Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

 Robert M. Butterfield, Caledonia County Deputy State's Attorney, St.
   Johnsbury, for plaintiff-appellee

 Robert Katims and David Venman, Law clerk (On the Brief), of Martin &
   Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.   Defendant Timothy Gilman appeals his conviction for
 assault and robbery, 13 V.S.A. { 608(a),(c), and burglary, 13 V.S.A. {
 1201(a).  He argues that the district court erred in refusing to suppress
 his confession and in rejecting his attempt to offer certain exculpatory
 evidence.  He also argues that the State's failure to charge specific acts
 violated his right to a unanimous jury verdict.  We affirm.
      In the course of a domestic dispute on the morning of March 24, 1989,
 defendant followed his girlfriend to the state police barracks in St.
 Johnsbury.  After police officers separated defendant from his girlfriend,
 defendant volunteered that he had information about welfare fraud and drug
 crime.  The officers expressed interest, but told him he was free to go and
 that he was under no obligation to talk with them.  Defendant stayed.  He
 was agitated but grew more calm as his visit continued.
      He and the officers discussed the possibility that he might become a
 confidential informant.  The officers told defendant he could be reimbursed
 for expenses and that he might be entitled to a percentage of any proceeds
 gained from the sale of property under the federal drug forfeiture law.  The
 officers also told him he would not be prosecuted for having grown marijuana
 in the median strip of the interstate highway, and that they would not
 reveal to suspects that he had provided them with incriminating information.
 The officer in charge of drug investigations then asked defendant a few
 questions to test his veracity.  Believing that a brother of defendant had
 been involved in the unsolved burglary and assault for which defendant now
 stands convicted, the officer asked defendant about his brother's involve-
 ment in those offenses.  Defendant responded, "We did that."
      The officer in charge of investigating the burglary and assault then
 entered the discussion.  Defendant agreed to discuss the crime, and the
 officer read him his Miranda rights, which defendant waived in writing.
 Prompted by the officer, defendant described the crime: at about 10 p.m. on
 June 19, 1983, defendant's girlfriend dropped him and his two younger
 brothers off near the home of Alfred Smith and Harriet Masure in
 Lyndonville.  Defendant had heard that Smith had a safe, and he and his
 brothers intended to force Smith to open it and give them its contents.  The
 three brothers entered the home with their faces masked and found Masure
 watching television while Smith dozed.  The brothers demanded that Smith
 open the safe, but he refused and grabbed a hammer.  In the ensuing
 struggle, the brothers beat Smith, inflicting severe facial injuries.
 Nonetheless, Smith continued to refuse to open the safe, and the brothers
 shut him and Masure in a bathroom.  Smith escaped through a window, but the
 brothers left the home empty-handed before help could arrive.
                                     I.
      Defendant moved to suppress his confession on grounds that he had been
 irrational at the time and had been led to believe he would not face
 prosecution or would be treated leniently for any conduct he described to
 police.  At a hearing on the motion, defendant and three police officers
 testified about their conversations at the barracks.  The court denied
 defendant's motion, finding that defendant was motivated by a desire to "get
 it off his chest."  The court found no connection between the confession and
 any promises concerning the possibility of defendant becoming a confidential
 informant.
      The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution (FN1) prohibit the intro-
duction of an involuntary confession into evidence.  See State v. Badger,
141 Vt. 430, 438, 450,