Case Title: State v. Cram

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-04-01T00:00:00Z

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. 90-548


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Stephen Cram                                 April Term, 1991


George T. Costes, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David E. Tartter, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Robert Bensing, Plattsburgh, New York, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   On November 20, 1989, defendant and five other
individuals entered the grounds of a test firing range facility in
Underhill, Vermont, and remained after notice against trespass had been
communicated to them.  Defendant's avowed purpose in entering was to prevent
the testing by General Electric Company of "gatling guns" and, consequently,
delay shipment of the guns to El Salvador, where they were being used by the
military to shoot civilians.  Defendant was charged with unlawful trespass
under 13 V.S.A. { 3705(a)(1).  At a pretrial status conference, and again in
answer to a motion in limine by the State, the trial court ruled that
defendant was barred from presenting defenses based on necessity and
justification under international law.  Defendant was convicted after a jury
trial.  Defendant argues on appeal that he was entitled to present both
defenses to the jury.  We affirm.
     That part of defendant's offer of proof that is relevant to this
opinion is as follows.  The harm defendant was trying to avert was the
killing of civilians by the El Salvadoran military.  Killing was taking
place in the city of San Salvador on the day defendant entered the Underhill
facility, as well as on the days immediately preceding and following.  Much
of the killing was being committed with gatling guns.  The gatling guns used
by the El Salvadoran military were manufactured solely at the General
Electric plant in Burlington.  Every gun, gun barrel, and component that
General Electric produces in Burlington is tested at the Underhill facility.
The testing is intermittent.  The El Salvadoran government had asked for
additional arms from the United States government, and the United States
government had agreed to send such arms.  Further, the barrels on the
gatling guns already in the El Salvadoran military's possession would have
to be replaced because they warp with constant use.  As defendant approached
the Underhill facility, he heard guns being tested.  The gun barrel he stood
in front of was smoking.  He was on the grounds of the facility for two and
one-half hours, during which time no guns were tested.
                                     I.
     A pretrial ruling on the admissibility of a defense based on necessity
is proper.  See State v. Warshow, 138 Vt. 22, 23-26,