Case Title: In re Hamlin

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

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

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. 88-593


In re Louis Hamlin, III                      Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Chittenden Superior Court

                                             January Term, 1990

Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

Gear and Davis, Inc., Burlington, and Oreste V. Valsangiacomo, Barre, for
   petitioner-appellant

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for respondent-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck and Gibson, JJ., and Springer, D.J. (Ret.),
          Specially Assigned


     PECK, J.  Petitioner appeals from the superior court's denial of his
petition for post-conviction relief.  Petitioner argues that the court erred
by declining to recognize statements made by J.S. at Northern Tier Youth
Services as exculpatory and material evidence.  Specifically, he claims that
the State's nondisclosure of these statements violated his rights to due
process and confrontation, as well as V.R.Cr.P. 16(b)(2), and Chapter I,
Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution.  We affirm.
                                     I.
     On May 21, 1981, petitioner, age sixteen, and J.S., age fifteen, were
arrested for the brutal attack seven days earlier on two young girls on
their way home from school, while walking along a shortcut in the woods
often used by local school children.  One of the girls died as a result of
the attack, and the other suffered serious injuries.  Petitioner was tried
for and convicted of first degree murder, 13 V.S.A. { 2301, and aggravated
sexual assault, 13 V.S.A. {{ 3252 and 3253.  He was sentenced to forty-five
years to life for the murder, and fifteen to twenty-five years for the
sexual asault.  J.S. was classified as a juvenile under Vermont law at the
time, and therefore not prosecuted as an adult.
     The State sent J.S. to Northern Tier Youth Services in Blossburg,
Pennsylvania for evaluation, treatment, and rehabilitation.  In April, 1982,
J.S. reported to counselors that he had perpetrated the crimes after
receiving encouragement from petitioner.  These statements came to defense
counsel's attention inadvertently after the trial, while working on another
case.  The Northern Tier statements, according to petitioner, were
consistent with J.S.'s deposition testimony that was read to the jury at
trial.  Petitioner asserts that the statements that J.S. made at Northern
Tier exculpate petitioner and have a reasonable probability of changing the
outcome of the trial.  The following evidence from the trial is relevant to
our analysis of whether the Northern Tier statements are exculpatory and
material.
     J.S. gave a lengthy statement to the police when he was first
apprehended implicating petitioner as the actual killer.  The trial was
postponed from November 1981 to May 1982, so that the State could depose
J.S.  That deposition took place on January 7th, 8th and February 16th of
1982.  After the deposition had been transcribed, J.S. read over his
testimony and changed hundreds of answers -- approximately 225 -- in the
transcript.  At trial, the jury heard the oral deposition testimony and the
written alterations J.S. made to the deposition transcript.
     Glaring contradictions mark J.S.'s deposition testimony.  J.S. gave
conflicting answers pertaining to the facts repeatedly.  His oral answers
most often characterized petitioner as the initiator, leader and primary
perpetrator of the crimes, while his written changes shifted the blame from
petitioner onto himself as the party responsible for the brutal acts.
Responses by J.S. addressed to his truthfulness also abound with
inconsistencies.  Relevant illustrations of the testimony appear below with
the analysis of petitioner's claims.
     As shown below, the trial court acted well within its discretion by
concluding that the Northern Tier statements do not warrant post-conviction
relief.  The evidence supports the court's finding that the statements were
at least cumulative, and at most more inculpatory than the deposition of
J.S. read to the jury at trial.
                                    II.
     In his motion for post-conviction relief and now on appeal, petitioner
argues that under Brady v. Maryland,