Case Title: State v. Poutre

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-05-01T00:00:00Z

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. 87-315


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Rene Poutre                                  Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit

                                             May Term, 1990



Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.   Defendant appeals from a jury verdict convicting him of
embezzlement in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2531.  We affirm.
     In June of 1986, defendant was charged with three counts of embezzling
insurance policy premiums during his ownership and management of the
Raintree Insurance Company.  One of those counts was dismissed, but five
more were added in November of 1986.  Essentially, the counts alleged that
defendant had taken premium payments from individuals seeking insurance
coverage and failed to pass the payments on to the companies that were to
provide the coverage.  Five days after the jury trial began in March of
1987, the court granted the State's motion to amend three of the counts to
charge that defendant was, in addition to being an agent of the insureds as
stated in the original counts, an agent of the insurance companies providing
the coverage.  On March 21, 1987, the jury convicted defendant on five of
the seven counts.
     On appeal, defendant claims that the court erred by (1) allowing the
State to amend the information during the trial, (2) charging the jury that
it need find an agency relationship only between defendant and any one of
several principals in order to convict him, (3) failing to enter a judgment
of acquittal on one of the counts, and (4) failing to grant defendant a new
trial after defense counsel disclosed that during the trial she was
negotiating for employment with a law firm that represented two of the
State's witnesses.  Defendant also contends that his conviction for
embezzlement, rather than larceny, constitutes plain error.
                                     I.
     Defendant first argues that, by permitting the State to amend three of
its counts to allege that defendant was an agent of the insurance companies
providing coverage, the court violated the prohibition against changing an
essential element of the crime charged.  Because defendant agreed to the
amended information, he has waived this claim of error.
     Under V.R.Cr.P. 7(d), the court may permit an information to be amended
after the trial has commenced "[i]f no additional or different offense is
charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced."
Thus, the court may not permit an amendment of one of the essential elements
of a crime when the amendment, in effect, charges an additional offense or
increases the potential punishment.  See State v. Verge, ___ Vt. ___, ___,
564 A.2d 1353, 1354-55 (1989) (defense counsel did not object to and failed
to show prejudice resulting from mid-trial amendment which struck part of
language in burglary information; however, amendment of unlawful mischief
information, over defense counsel's objection, that increased amount of
damage allegedly done to building during break-in was error because it
increased potential maximum punishment).
     In this case, defense counsel initially objected to the prosecutor's
proposed amendment, stating that she had not been able to explore the agency
issue when she had cross-examined witnesses representing the insurance
companies.  The prosecutor argued that the relationships between defendant
and the insurance companies had been examined and that, in any case, he
would not object to a telephone deposition of those witnesses if defendant
sought additional information from them.  A week later, when the amendment
issue was addressed again, the court pointed out that the State had taken
the position that it would have to prove an agency relationship both between
defendant and the insureds and between defendant and the insurance companies
if the amendment were allowed.  Based on that consideration and "the possi-
bility that there might be a double jeopardy issue," defense counsel with-
drew her objection to the addition of the insurance companies as principals.
The court, however, expressed doubt that the State was obligated to prove an
agency relationship between the defendant and both the insured and the
insurer; although it had not yet decided what the State's burden would be in
this regard, it indicated that it was inclined to rule that the State need
prove only one principal so long as the jury was unanimimous as to who that
principal was.  The court then directly asked defense counsel if, given the
court's inclination, she was still willing to withdraw her objection to the
State's amended information.  Defense counsel responded in the affirmative.
Subsequently, at the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury,
without objection from defendant, that the State was required in each count
to prove an agency relationship between defendant and the insured or between
defendant and the insurance company, but not both.
     By withdrawing his objection and agreeing to the amended information,
defendant waived his right to a review of the court's ruling on appeal.
See Scanlan v. Hopkins, 128 Vt. 626, 632,