Case Title: State v. Synnott

Citation: 178 Vt. 66, 2005 VT 19, 872 A.2d 874

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Synnott (2003-113); 178 Vt. 66; 872 A.2d 874

2005 VT 19

[Filed 04-Feb-2005]

       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.

                                 2005 VT 19

                                No. 2003-113

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont, 
                                                 Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

  Stephen Synnott	                         November Term, 2004

  Edward J. Cashman, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
    General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Bradley S. Stetler of Stetler, Allen & Kampmann, Burlington, for
    Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.), and
            Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  ALLEN, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.   Defendant appeals a
  jury verdict finding him guilty of lewd and lascivious behavior, second
  degree unlawful restraint, and attempted sexual assault.  He argues that
  (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of him
  touching his genitals and acting strangely in a holding cell at the police
  station following the alleged assault; (2) the unlawful restraint
  conviction cannot stand independent of the other charges; (3) the evidence
  was insufficient to support the attempted sexual assault conviction; (4)
  the trial court's jury instruction on the attempted sexual assault
  conviction failed to adequately explain the element of intent; and (5) the
  trial court gave the jury an erroneous and prejudicial supplemental
  instruction on the attempted sexual assault charge.  We find no error
  requiring reversal and therefore affirm the convictions.

       ¶  2.  On the evening of December 28, 2001, the complainant and her
  friend, who was spending the night with complainant, were having drinks at
  a bar when defendant arrived and sat near the two women.  After the three
  spent several hours at the bar conversing, the complainant decided that it
  was time to take her drunk friend home.  Defendant suggested that they go
  to his nearby hotel for coffee.  They agreed and walked a couple of blocks
  to the hotel.  After spending about an hour in defendant's hotel room,
  where the complainant allowed defendant to give her a back rub, they walked
  to the complainant's apartment, less than a mile away.  When they arrived
  at the apartment, the complainant's friend fell asleep immediately.

       ¶  3.  Over the next four hours, defendant behaved in a manner that
  increasingly alarmed the complainant.  Defendant became upset after being
  unable to download a particular song from the Internet.  When the
  complainant suggested that it might be time to call it a night, defendant
  put his hands on her shoulder to prevent her from standing up and pushed
  her back into the chair she was sitting in.  Refusing to allow the
  complainant to log off the Internet, defendant swung his legs over the arms
  of her chair, sat down on her lap facing her, and began kissing her and
  squeezing her breasts.  Every time the complainant attempted to get up to
  check on her friend or to change the song on the CD player, defendant would
  push her back into the chair.  At times, he became agitated, complaining
  about the music or the complainant not drinking.  The complainant attempted
  to placate him by agreeing with him and pretending to drink.
   
       ¶  4.  Finally, defendant allowed the complainant to go to the
  bathroom, but he insisted that she come right back, and he pushed the
  bathroom door open while she was inside.  When the complainant returned
  from the bathroom, she asked defendant to leave.  Defendant became
  agitated, repeatedly asking the complainant if he had not been good to her. 
  At one point, he stood over the complainant's friend, whom he and the
  complainant had moved from an air mattress in the living room to the
  bedroom, and made chopping movements with his hands.

       ¶  5.  Defendant then pulled the complainant back into the living
  room, sat down on a chair, and tried to pull her onto his lap.  When she
  resisted, he got angry.  She reached for his shoulder in an attempt to calm
  him, but he screamed at her not to touch him.  When she told him that she
  was tired, he pushed her onto the air mattress, pinned her with his body,
  and began yelling at her.  He then began kissing her, fondling her, and
  removing her clothes.  He ignored her pleas that he stop, and every time
  she tried to push him away, he screamed at her not to touch him.  He
  removed his clothes and began to grind his crotch against hers.  He urged
  her to take off her jeans and tried to do so himself when she refused.  At
  one point, he whispered into her ear that he was bipolar, which made her
  more frightened of him.  She eventually got him to get off of her by
  begging him for a glass of water.  When he left the room, she ran to the
  computer and logged off the Internet.
   
       ¶  6.  When defendant returned, he was angry that the complainant
  had put her turtleneck back on.  He kept asking her if he had not been good
  to her.  By this time, the complainant was crying and begging defendant,
  telling him that it was her fault and not his.  At one point, defendant
  grabbed her hand and pulled her towards the kitchen, again asking her if he
  had not been good to her.  Then he put his hand around her throat and began
  to squeeze.  He let her go after she acknowledged that he had been good to
  her.  When he opened the refrigerator door, the complainant grabbed the
  phone, ran into the bedroom, and called the police.

       ¶  7.  Minutes later, the police arrived at the apartment building and
  saw defendant walking along the road outside, wearing a jacket and jeans,
  but no shirt.  They detained him and spoke to the complainant, who was
  hysterical.  Defendant was taken into protective custody and placed in a
  holding cell monitored by a security camera.  While in the holding cell,
  defendant pulled down his pants, urinated, and then sat on the toilet.  At
  one point, he got up from the toilet, walked around with his pants at his
  ankles, touched his genitals, and then raised his arms toward the ceiling. 
  When the officer told him to put his pants back on, he did so.

       ¶  8.  Defendant was charged with (1) lewd and lascivious behavior, in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2601, for fondling the complainant; (2) second
  degree unlawful restraint, in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2406(a)(3), for
  preventing the complainant from getting out of her chair during a
  one-and-one-half-hour period; and (3) attempted sexual assault, in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(1) and § 9, for engaging in acts toward
  the commission of a sexual assault before being prevented from doing so. 
  The district court denied defendant's pretrial motion to prevent the
  prosecution from admitting evidence concerning his behavior in the holding
  cell on the night of the alleged assault.  Following a three-day trial, the
  jury convicted defendant on all three charges.  The district court
  sentenced defendant to serve four-to-eight years for the first two
  offenses, with a suspended five-to-twenty-year sentence for the third
  offense.

                                     I.
   
       ¶  9.  Defendant first argues that the introduction of a videotape
  showing him in a holding cell nude, urinating, defecating, and touching his
  genitals-together with police testimony concerning that behavior-was so
  prejudicial as to warrant a new trial.  Shortly before trial, defendant
  filed a motion in limine asking the trial court to exclude testimony or
  other evidence of his behavior after the police took him into protective
  custody on the night of the alleged assault.  Defendant argued that
  evidence concerning his behavior following his arrest would serve only to
  prejudice his case and inflame the jury.  Defendant also argued that the
  videotape taken in the holding cell did not support the officers' testimony
  concerning his behavior.  At the hearing on the motion, the State contended
  that evidence of defendant's erratic behavior following his arrest was
  relevant to corroborate the complainant's description of his bizarre
  behavior during the alleged assault and to counter his contention that she
  never clearly rejected his sexual advances.  In response, defense counsel
  stated only that the videotape did not support the testimony of police
  officers that defendant was masturbating or engaging in lewd behavior in
  the holding cell.  The trial court ruled that defendant's conduct after his
  arrest was relevant on the issue of consent, particularly given that the
  case was a credibility contest between defendant and the complainant.  As
  for the potential prejudice to defendant, the court noted that the evidence
  might actually support defendant's diminished capacity defense.
   
       ¶  10.  At trial, one of the police officers who monitored defendant
  in the holding cell testified that she observed defendant urinate, sit down
  on the toilet, and then get up with his pants at his ankles, face the
  camera, and pull on his penis while screaming.  Following this testimony,
  the jury viewed a videotape of defendant in the holding cell.  The
  videotape is a soundless series of still images from several different
  cameras.  The views of defendant in the holding cell last one-half second
  or less before moving on to views from other cameras showing scenes inside
  and outside the police station.  The brevity of the still frames and the
  rapid movement from one frame to another make it difficult to view the
  videotape and to see what is happening.  Generally, the videotape shows
  defendant, at various times, lying on a cot, urinating, and sitting on the
  toilet.  At one point, defendant gets up from the toilet with his pants at
  his ankles, walks to the cell door, turns to face the camera, and then
  reaches toward the ceiling with both arms before placing his hands on his
  crotch.  There are seven or eight still frames from the time he gets off
  the toilet until he pulls his pants back up, and only one of them shows
  defendant with his hands on his crotch.

       ¶  11.  After the videotape was shown to the jury, defendant asked the
  trial court to instruct the jurors that the videotape "relates only to the
  defense of intoxication and should not be used as evidence that he was
  engaged in some kind of lewd and lascivious act because there's nothing
  charged as far as what happened in the jail cell."  The State responded
  that the videotape was being offered to corroborate the victim's account of
  defendant's bizarre behavior.  Although the transcript of the court's
  response is not entirely clear, the bases for the court's refusal to give
  the requested instruction appear to be that the videotape is relevant with
  respect to the issue of consent and does not show defendant engaging in
  lewd and lascivious behavior.
   
       ¶  12.  On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its
  discretion by admitting both the testimony and videotape concerning his
  behavior in the holding cell, but he focuses primarily on the videotape. 
  He first asserts that the court failed to exercise its discretion by not
  viewing the videotape and weighing its probative value against any
  potential prejudicial impact before denying his motion in limine and
  showing the videotape to the jury.  He also contends that the videotape has
  little probative value but, on the other hand, is highly prejudicial
  because it depicts him engaging in private bodily functions and acts of a
  sexual nature.  According to defendant, the trial court abused its
  discretion by failing to grasp that evidence of him engaging in sexually
  explicit conduct would be highly prejudicial in a case charging him with
  sexual offenses.

       ¶  13.  We agree with defendant that the trial court abused its
  discretion by not previewing the videotape before  ruling on his motion in
  limine and showing it to the jury.  Without previewing the videotape, it
  would be difficult, if not impossible, for the trial court to weigh its
  potential prejudicial impact on the jury.  Nevertheless, we find no
  reversible error.  The court eventually viewed the videotape along with the
  jury, and found that it was ambiguous and unlikely to have significant
  prejudicial impact on the jury.  The court stated that the videotape did
  not reveal the type of lewd actions that it had expected to see based on
  the arguments presented at the motions hearing.  Apparently, the court felt
  that the brief still images of defendant in the holding cell would, if
  anything, diminish the effect of the police officer's testimony concerning
  defendant's behavior in the cell and possibly provide support for
  defendant's diminished capacity defense.  Thus, unlike the situation in
  State v. Shippee, 2003 VT 106, ¶¶ 14-15, 176 Vt. ___,