Case Title: State v. Fitzpatrick

Citation: 172 Vt. 111, 772 A.2d 1093

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Fitzpatrick (99-223); 172 Vt. 111; 772 A.2d 1093

[Filed 16-Mar-2001]

       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. 99-223

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Paul Fitzpatrick	                         December Term, 1999

Paul F. Hudson, J.

Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and James E. Maxwell, Deputy 
  State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas Z. Zonay of Ford, Johnson & Zonay, P.C., Woodstock, for 
  Defendant-Appellee.

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

       DOOLEY, J.   Defendant Paul Fitzpatrick was charged with rape and
  tried before two juries,  both of which became deadlocked.  After the
  second mistrial, the trial court, upon motion of  defendant, dismissed the
  charges against defendant with prejudice, pursuant to Vermont Rule of 
  Criminal Procedure 48(b)(2).  The State, which seeks to try defendant a
  third time, appeals, claiming  the court abused its discretion in
  dismissing the charges.  Defendant cross-appeals, arguing that  because of
  prosecutorial misconduct the court should have dismissed the case at the
  beginning of the  second trial.  We affirm without reaching the
  cross-appeal.  

       On September 4, 1996, according to testimony at the two trials, the
  alleged victim met a

 

  friend for dinner and drinks.  The two women, who knew each other through
  work, went to a  restaurant at around 7:30 p.m. and stayed there for about
  an hour and a half.  They then went to a bar,  where they were acquainted
  with the owner and the bartender.  At the bar they were approached by 
  defendant, who introduced himself, and asked them to play pool.  The three
  played pool together on  and off, and struck up a conversation.  At around
  11:00 p.m., the alleged victim's friend decided to  go home.  The friend
  tried several times to persuade the alleged victim to go with her, but she 
  refused to leave.  

       According to the alleged victim's testimony, she intended to finish
  the beer she was drinking  and then drive home.  However, at that point
  defendant approached her and said that he was having a  party in his motel
  room nearby and invited her to come along.  Believing that several people
  from the  bar would be there, she accepted.  When they arrived at the motel
  room, they were alone.  The  alleged victim claimed that when she realized
  there was no party and attempted to leave, defendant  held her against her
  will and raped her.  She testified that he slapped her and bit the earrings
  from her  ears.  She scratched his back with her fingernails, trying to
  resist.  Eventually, he fell asleep, and she  left the room and called the
  police to report the rape.  The call was logged in at 3:31 a.m.

       The police interviewed the alleged victim at the police station, and
  then took her to the  hospital to have a rape kit examination performed to
  gather evidence.  At about 7:00 a.m., the  detective in charge of the
  investigation knocked on the door of defendant's hotel room to question 
  him.  Defendant admitted that a woman had been there, but said that
  "nothing had happened."  

       According to defendant, it was the alleged victim who asked to come to
  his motel room with  him.  He testified that while they were at the bar,
  they began flirting with each other.  They were 

 

  sitting at the bar together, talking, and she had her hand on his leg. 
  They decided they were  going to go back to his room, and she asked, "How
  do you want me to be for you?"  When they got  to his room, they began
  kissing and fondling each other.  The alleged victim took off her earrings
  and  placed them on the night stand.  Defendant testified that, at one
  point, she ran her fingernails down  his back, causing him pain.  When he
  said that he did not like that, she asked again, "How do you  want me to be
  for you?"  Defendant testified that he became uncomfortable with the
  situation, and  decided to ask her to leave.  He asked her several times to
  leave, but she kept saying that she wanted  to stay.  Finally, when he
  insisted, she became upset and stormed out of the room, leaving the door 
  open as she left.  He closed the door and went to sleep.

       Defendant was charged with kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault and
  simple assault.  The  case was tried before a jury in February 1998.  At
  the trial, the alleged victim and defendant both  testified, as did several
  police officers who were involved in the investigation, medical personnel 
  who performed the rape kit examination, two expert witnesses, and several
  other fact witnesses.  A  motel guest testified that he heard a commotion
  in another room during the night in question.  He  heard a loud male voice
  that sounded upset and emotional, and then a sound like a child running 
  across a room and hitting a coffee table.  The doctor who examined the
  alleged victim at the hospital  testified that she had scratches on her
  lower back, and a long scratch on her left interior thigh, and  that there
  was a half centimeter fresh laceration in her perineum, but that no sperm
  had been found in  her urine or vaginal mucous.  The expert witnesses
  testified that there was saliva on one of the  earrings the alleged victim
  had left in defendant's room, and that there was a one in fifty chance it 
  came from defendant.  There was also a one in fifty chance that DNA
  material scraped from 

 

  underneath the alleged victim's fingernails came from defendant.  On the
  third day of trial,  the jury became deadlocked, and a mistrial was
  declared.  The State claimed, and the trial court  accepted, that the
  jurors were eleven to one for conviction.  

       After the first mistrial, the charges were amended to unlawful
  restraint, sexual assault, and  simple assault, and the case was tried to a
  second jury in January 1999.  Essentially the same  witnesses testified,
  and the same medical and expert DNA evidence was presented.  Another hung 
  jury resulted, and the court declared a mistrial.  Based on the State's
  representation, the court found  that the vote of the jurors was six for
  conviction and six for acquittal.  Thereafter, defendant filed his  motion
  to dismiss the prosecution with prejudice under V.R.Cr.P. 48(b)(2).  

       After hearing evidence and argument on the motion, the court, in a
  twenty-four page opinion,  granted it, based on its evaluation of the
  factors set out in State v. Sauve, 164 Vt. 134, 140-41,