Case Title: State v. Elkins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88-509

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. 88-509


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

Michael J. Elkins                            January Term, 1990


Joseph J. Wolchik, J.

James A. Hughes, Franklin County Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans,
  for plaintiff-appellee

Kurt M. Hughes of Wool & Murdoch, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ., and Barney, C.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty
of simple assault on a police officer in violation of 13 V.S.A. {{
1023(a)(1) and 1028.  We affirm.
     The parties do not dispute the events preceding the arrival of a
Franklin County Deputy Sheriff at defendant's home.  At approximately 10:30
p.m. on a November, 1987 evening, the deputy parked near an intersection and
sat in his cruiser running radar and completing paperwork.  The radar gun
indicated that a vehicle approaching the intersection was speeding.  The
vehicle turned onto the road where the cruiser sat and in so doing crossed
the center line of the road.  The deputy activated the cruiser's blue lights
and pursued the vehicle.  After a short distance, the vehicle turned into
the driveway of a residence.  As the deputy approached the residence, he
obtained a general description of defendant whom he observed getting out of
the vehicle.  Defendant walked toward the screened-in portion of the
residence.  The deputy pulled the cruiser with blue lights flashing in front
of the house, got out, and yelled for defendant to stop.  Defendant
hesitated for a moment, and then proceeded into the house.  The deputy
radioed the state police barracks for a license and registration check on
the vehicle, but did not wait for the response.
     The deputy entered the porch through the screen door and knocked on the
interior door of the house.  Defendant came to the door, and when the deputy
stated that he wished to speak to defendant about his operation of the
vehicle, defendant asked if the deputy had a warrant.  The deputy informed
defendant that he had witnessed the violation of two motor vehicle laws and
need not obtain a warrant before questioning him.  Defendant became
increasingly irritated with the deputy's polite but persistent questioning
and the continued flashing of the cruiser lights in front of the house.
Defendant's wife approached and said that she was the vehicle's driver.  The
deputy, however, remained unconvinced.  After putting on his shoes,
defendant followed the deputy out onto the front lawn to continue the
discussion.
     Once outside, the confrontation escalated.  Defendant demanded that the
deputy turn off the blue lights "or else he would blow them off."  In an
effort to calm defendant, the deputy turned to extinguish the cruiser
lights.  The deputy testified that he then saw defendant reach behind his
back.  The deputy turned back toward defendant and began to ask him to keep
his hands in plain view.  Before the deputy could get the full words out,
defendant swung his arm around and struck the deputy's left eye causing
pain.  The deputy then grabbed defendant.  The two fell against the house
and then to the ground as they grappled.  Defendant sustained a broken leg
in the fall.
     Defendant's evidence painted a different picture of the events that
transpired upon the deputy's arrival at the residence.  Defendant, his wife,
and his son testified that defendant closed the door on the deputy after the
deputy refused to explain what he wanted to discuss with the driver of the
vehicle.  The deputy, however, continued to bang on the door and again asked
to speak with the driver of the vehicle.  Again, defendant demanded to know
the reason for the inquiry.  This time the deputy explained that he had
witnessed the vehicle swing wide on the turn coming into town.  Defendant
then donned his shoes and accompanied the deputy to the front lawn.  The
impasse, however, continued and defendant never admitted that he was the
vehicle's driver.  Defendant denied swinging at the deputy or hitting him in
any way, but told the deputy he would not answer any more questions and was
going to bed.  As defendant began to turn to go back into the house, the
deputy tackled defendant and the two fell to the ground in front of the
porch.
     The court denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.  The
jury found defendant guilty of simple assault on a police officer.
     Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:  (1) the deputy was
not performing a lawful duty within the meaning of 13 V.S.A. { 1028; (2) the
trial court erred in its instructions regarding defendant's right not to
answer questions posed to him by the deputy; (3) the court committed plain
error in its instructions on reasonable doubt; (4) the court erred in
failing to grant defendant's motion for acquittal because there was
insufficient evidence that defendant purposefully assaulted the deputy; (5)
the court erred in failing to order a new trial; (6) the misconduct
committed by a prosecution witness constituted prejudice that required the
court to grant a mistrial.  We reject each of these arguments and affirm.
                                    I.
     Defendant contends that his entry into his residence ended the deputy's
lawful duty and left the deputy without authority to proceed onto
defendant's property.  Therefore, defendant argues that the State could not
prove that the deputy was assaulted while performing a lawful duty, an
essential element of the charge. (FN1)
     "13 V.S.A. { 1028 makes the offense of simple assault, 13 V.S.A. {
1023, a different and more serious crime when inflicted upon a police
officer performing a lawful duty."  State v. Fuller, 146 Vt. 364, 365, 503 A.2d 550, 551 (1985).  See also State v. Peters, 141 Vt. 341, 347,