Case Title: State v. Leggett

Citation: 167 Vt. 438, 709 A.2d 491

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Leggett  (96-249); 167 Vt. 438; 709 A.2d 491

[Opinion Filed 21-Nov-1997]

[Motion for Reargument Withdrawn 2-Feb-1998]

       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.

                            No. 96-249

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Harold Leggett                               March Term, 1997

David A. Jenkins, J.

Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall
  Johnson, Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney,
  Montpelier, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Defendant Harold Leggett appeals revocation of his
  probation for violation of a condition prohibiting contact with children
  under the age of sixteen without the approval of his probation officer. 
  Defendant argues that the court erred by allowing introduction of hearsay
  testimony about defendant's actions without first making a finding and
  stating reasons as to whether there was good cause to admit the testimony. 
  We affirm.

       In February 1993, defendant pled nolo contendere to a charge of sexual
  assault against his stepdaughter, a minor.  The court sentenced defendant
  to serve twenty-two months to twelve years with all suspended except
  twenty-two months.  Defendant was given credit for time served and placed
  on probation.

       In February 1994, defendant was sentenced to an additional one year to
  serve upon findings that his disruptive behavior in sex-offender group
  treatment and his nonpayment of counseling costs violated conditions of his
  probation.  Defendant returned to the community in

 

  September 1994.  Following unsubstantiated reports that defendant was
  having contact with children under age sixteen in 1994 and 1995,
  defendant's probation officer received a substantiated report in January
  1996.  She filed a probation-violation complaint alleging that defendant
  violated the condition of his probation prohibiting contact with children
  under age sixteen without approval of his probation officer.  The probation
  officer recommended that the court impose defendant's underlying sentence.

       At two days of hearings on the merits, eight witnesses testified,
  including defendant and a minor who was under age sixteen at the time of
  the alleged contact.  Following the hearings, the court made oral findings
  and concluded that defendant had violated a condition of his probation by
  having contact with children under sixteen.  The court sentenced defendant
  to serve the underlying sentence of twenty-two months to twelve years with
  credit for time served.

       On appeal, defendant claims that he was substantially prejudiced at
  the probation-revocation hearing by the introduction of hearsay testimony
  without which, he argues, "the court may not have found a violation or
  sentenced [him] so harshly."  Defendant's principal objection is to the
  testimony of a Social and Rehabilitation Services worker who interviewed
  the seven-year-old girl with whom defendant allegedly had contact.(FN1) 
  Defendant correctly contends that our holding in State v. Austin, ___ Vt.
  ___,