Case Title: State v. Lund

Citation: 164 Vt 70, 664 A.2d 253

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_LUND.94-284; 164 Vt 70; 664 A.2d 253

[Opinion Filed 16-Jun-1995]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 3-Aug-1995]

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. 94-284


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont
                                                  Unit 3, Orange Circuit

Richard Lund                                      March Term, 1995



Shireen Avis Fisher, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee 

Robert M. Paolini and Lauren Cleary, Law Clerk, of Martin & Paolini, Barre,
for defendant- appellant 


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.     Defendant Richard Lund appeals his jury conviction in the
Orange District Court of one count of sexual assault on a minor, 13 V.S.A. 
3252(a)(3).  Defendant claims the trial court denied him his Sixth Amendment
right to confrontation by excluding evidence under Vermont's rape shield
statute.  Id.  3255. We affirm. 

     Complainant C.C. testified that she was sexually assaulted by defendant
in the summer of 1989 when she was six or seven years old. C.C. lived with
her family in a house next to her grandparents and defendant, her uncle.  On
the day of the assault, C.C.'s grandparents were caring for her at their
home.  At some point they left her alone with defendant so they could go 

  

to the store.  While they were gone, defendant suggested that C.C. take a nap
in the grandfather's "nap room."  C.C. complied, and shortly thereafter,
defendant sexually assaulted her. 

     Before trial, defendant filed a notice of intent to introduce evidence
of a previous sexual assault on C.C. by her grandfather pursuant to Vermont's
rape shield law, 13 V.S.A.  3255. Defendant asserted that C.C. had wrongly
accused him for an assault her grandfather had committed, and argued that he
needed to raise the issue of the earlier assault to impeach C.C.'s
credibility. Defendant contended that statements C.C. made to a therapist
during a taped interview were inconsistent with other statements she had made
and showed C.C.'s confusion over the two assaults.  Defendant noted that,
during the interview, C.C. stated she had told her mother about defendant's
attack when it occurred.  Although C.C. had disclosed her grandfather's
assault when she was three to her mother shortly after it happened, she did
not reveal defendant's assault until two years after it occurred.  In
addition, defendant pointed to C.C.'s statement that defendant had suggested
she nap in the grandfather's nap room prior to assaulting her.  C.C.'s
grandfather had apparently used the same pretext before he sexually assaulted
C.C. in the same room. 

     The trial court ruled that the evidence was not admissible under any of
the rape shield statute's three exceptions.  See id.  3255(a)(3)(A), (B)
and (C).  The court also concluded that the evidence was inadmissible in any
event because its limited probative value was substantially outweighed by its
private character and the risk of confusing the jury.  Defendant was
convicted, and he appeals. 

     Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying
him an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant regarding the sexual
assault by her grandfather.   He contends 

  

that questioning C.C. on the similarities of the two assaults and the
inconsistencies of her statements was necessary to secure his right of
confrontation.  We disagree. 

     The Sixth Amendment affords a criminal defendant the right to confront
witnesses against him at trial.  State v. Patnaude, 140 Vt. 361, 369,