Case Title: State v. Curtis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89-621

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-09-01T00:00:00Z

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. 89-621


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
 Benny E. Curtis                              Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit

                                              September Term, 1991


 Edward J. Cashman, J.

 Gary S. Kessler, Supervising Appellate Prosecutor, and Baldwin Chin, Intern
   (On the Brief), Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

 Gary J. Karpin, Newport, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



    MORSE, J.    Defendant shot a deer decoy and was convicted of attempting
 to take a wild deer out of season under 10 V.S.A. { 4745.  His principal
 argument on appeal is that the defense of legal impossibility precludes a
 conviction under this statute and under Vermont's attempt statute, 13 V.S.A.
 { 9.  He also contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct on
 the issue of entrapment and that he should be acquitted because the use of a
 deer decoy violated certain Fish and Wildlife Department guidelines.  We
 affirm.
      At approximately nine o'clock on the night of November 18, 1988, two
 state game wardens placed a deer decoy in a field adjacent to Town Road 23
 in Greensboro, Vermont.  Complaints by local residents prompted the measure
 in an effort to detect the illegal taking of deer.  The wardens constructed
 the decoy using styrofoam and wood, a deer hide covering, and a mounted deer
 head.  They designed the body of the decoy to closely resemble the physique
 and proportions of a deer, covering its glass eyes with reflective tape to
 simulate the appearance of a live deer's eyes.  The decoy was placed
 eighty-three feet from the road.
      Positioning themselves so that they could observe the area undetected,
 the wardens saw defendant's pickup truck proceeding slowly along the town
 road.  They watched as the truck stopped and saw a "very bright" light shine
 from the passenger window for approximately thirty seconds, aimed directly
 at the decoy.  After the light went out, the wardens continued to watch as
 the truck again began moving slowly down the road.   It stopped once more,
 and the light reappeared, again aimed at the decoy.  The wardens saw the
 silhouette of a rifle emerge from the driver's window and heard a gun shot
 almost immediately thereafter.  The  wardens converged on the truck,
 identifying defendant as the operator of the truck and seizing a .22
 caliber rifle, ammunition and lighting devices, the strongest of which was
 attached to a miner's cap, worn by defendant.  An expended .22 caliber
 casing was found on the ground nearby.  Upon examination of the decoy, the
 wardens determined that one eye had been shattered by a gun shot.
                                     I.
      We must decide whether it makes a difference that defendant shot a
 decoy, a fact beyond his knowledge, rather than a live deer.  Defendant
 argues that it does, claiming the defense of legal impossibility requires a
 reversal.  We have not had occasion to rule on this issue.
      A person is prohibited from taking "a wild deer except specified wild
 deer during the seasons provided by law."  10 V.S.A. { 4745.  A person is
 guilty of attempting a crime by doing "an act toward [its] commission . . .
 but by reason of being interrupted or prevented fails in the execution of
 the same."  13 V.S.A. { 9.  We have held that an "attempt consists not only
 of an intent to commit a particular crime, but . . . some overt act designed
 to carry out such intent."  State v. Hudon, 103 Vt. 17, 20, 151 A. 562, 564
 (1930);  see also State v. Boutin, 133 Vt. 531, 533,