Case Title: State v. O'Neill

Citation: 165 Vt 270, 682 A.2d 943

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. O'Neill  (95-217 & 95-239); 165 Vt 270; 682 A.2d 943

[Opinion Filed 14-Jun-1996]

[Motion for Reargument in Docket No. 95-239 Denied 3-Jul-1996]


       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.


                             Nos. 95-217 & 95-239


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

Michael O'Neill                                   March Term, 1996


State of Vermont

     v.

Timothy Trono


David Suntag, J.

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

       Oreste V. Valsangiacomo, Jr., of Valsangiacomo, Detora & McQuesten,
  P.C., Barre, for defendant-appellant O'Neill

       David C. Sleigh of Sleigh & Williams, St. Johnsbury, for
  defendant-appellant Trono


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       MORSE, J.   These consolidated interlocutory appeals arise from the
  Washington District Court's denial of defendants' motions to dismiss
  charges of obstruction of justice under 13 V.S.A. § 3015 ("[w]hoever . . .
  corruptly . . . obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede
  the due administration of justice" commits a crime).  Defendants, relying
  on the interpretation of a federal statute similar to Vermont's, claim that
  the existence of a pending judicial proceeding is an element of the crime. 
  The trial court ruled that a pending judicial proceeding is not a required
  element under Vermont's statute.  We affirm.

 


                                I.


       These appeals arise out of the same incident.  In early 1994, the
  Vermont State Police began an investigation of alleged misconduct by
  members of the Northfield Police Department. On Labor Day weekend of 1993,
  Officer Ken Falcone had allegedly fired his pistol into a store owned by
  William Oren, an outspoken critic of the Department. Officer Trono

       Defendant Timothy Trono, who knew that Falcone was responsible for the
  shooting, responded with Officer Donald McCormick to Oren's report of
  vandalism.  McCormick recovered two shell casings at the scene, which he
  gave to Trono.  Trono, in turn, submitted two shell casings to the Vermont
  State Police Crime Laboratory. He later told Officer Mark Heimall that he
  had substituted a different pair of casings for the ones found at the
  scene. Subsequently, laboratory personnel discovered that although a bullet
  jacket recovered from the scene matched a pistol taken from Falcone's home,
  the casings Trono submitted did not, indicating that they were not the ones
  retrieved from the scene.

       Trono was charged with obstruction of justice.  He filed a motion to
  dismiss the charge on the ground that the statute does not apply to conduct
  that takes place before a judicial proceeding is initiated.  The motion was
  denied.  Subsequently Trono pled guilty to obstruction of justice, but
  retained the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. Police
  Chief O'Neill

       During the course of the misconduct investigation, Officer Mark
  Heimall spoke with the Chief of the Northfield Police, defendant Michael
  O'Neill, while wearing an electronic listening device.  Heimall told
  O'Neill that he knew Falcone and Trono were involved in the shooting of
  Oren's Store and asked what he should say if questioned about it. O'Neill
  replied, "The way I would approach it at this point in time is I don't know
  anything about it."

       Heimall also spoke with Falcone.  Falcone told him: "[T]hey need the
  barrel [the casings at the scene] w[ere] fired from. . . . Mike [O'Neill]
  told me to dump, like go to Jersey and toss [my gun barrel] in some river
  somewhere on my way to Jersey."  Falcone also told the Vermont

 

  State Police that O'Neill, several times, had told him to get rid of his
  gun barrel.  O'Neill also supplied Trono with a gun, directing him to fire
  it, collect two casings, and substitute them for the ones recovered from
  Oren's store.  O'Neill was charged with three counts of obstruction of
  justice.  He moved for their dismissal on the same ground -- that no
  judicial proceedings were pending at the time the alleged offenses
  occurred.  The court denied the motion, and O'Neill filed an interlocutory
  appeal which was consolidated with Trono's appeal.

                                II.

       The sole issue on appeal is whether the existence of a pending
  judicial proceeding is an element of the crime of obstruction of justice. 
  The statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3015, reads as follows:

       Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening
  letter or communication, intimidates or impedes any witness, grand or petit
  juror, or officer in or of any court of the state of Vermont, or causes
  bodily injury to such person or intentionally damages the property of such
  person on account of such person's attendance at, deliberation at, or
  performance of his or her official duties in connection with a matter
  already heard, presently being heard, or to be heard before any court of
  the state of Vermont, or corruptly or by threats or force or by any
  threatening letter or communication, obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to
  obstruct or impede the due administration of justice, shall be imprisoned
  not more than five years or fined not more than $5,000, or both.

  Defendants were charged, under the last or so-called "omnibus clause" of
  the provision, with corruptly endeavoring to obstruct or impede the due
  administration of justice.  The Vermont statute, which was adopted in 1977
  is based on a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (1976), which read as
  follows:

       Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening
  letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any
  witness, in any court of the United States or before any United States or
  other committing magistrate, or any grand or petit juror, or officer in or
  of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any
  examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate or
  other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any
  party or witness in his person or property on account of his attending or
  having attended such court or examination before such officer, magistrate,
  or other committing magistrate, or on account of his testifying or having
  testified to any matter pending therein, or injures any such grand or petit
  juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment
  assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror,
  or injures any such officer, magistrate, or other committing magistrate in
  his person or property on account of the performance of his official
  duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter
  or communication, influences, obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to
  influence, obstruct, or impede,
  
 

  the due administration of justice, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or
  imprisoned not more than five years or both.

  See also State v. McHugh, 161 Vt. 574, 576,