Case Title: State v. Damon

Citation: 178 Vt. 564, 2005 VT 54, 878 A.2d 256

Docket Number: 2004-333

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Damon (2004-333); 178 Vt. 564; 878 A.2d 256

2005 VT 54

[Filed 02-May-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 54

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-333

                              MARCH TERM, 2005

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }	District Court of Vermont,
       v.	                       }	Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
                                       }	
  Joshua Lee Damon	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 122-1-04 WmCr

                                                Trial Judge: John P. Wesley

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant, Joshua Damon, was charged with aiding in the
  commission of petit larceny, a misdemeanor.  13 V.S.A. § 2502.  Defendant
  moved to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case, arguing that the crime of
  aiding in the commission of a misdemeanor does not exist in Vermont, and
  even if such a charge exists, the State failed to provide sufficient
  evidence to support the charge.  The trial court denied defendant's motion
  to dismiss, and defendant appealed.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  The facts are as follows.  One afternoon, two people reported
  that their purses had been stolen from their vehicles which were parked at
  businesses on Putney Road in Brattleboro.  The first person parked her
  truck in a grocery store lot and reported that someone had broken her
  pickup truck's rear side window and stolen her purse.  No witnesses came
  forward to report the theft. Approximately one half hour later, another
  person reported that someone stole her purse from her car that was parked
  at a gas station down the street from the grocery store.  The gas station
  clerk observed the theft and described the individual who stole the purse
  as a white male wearing a ball cap with flames on it.  The clerk witnessed
  the male get out of a small blue car and observed another white male with
  dark hair and a goatee, the defendant, also emerge from the vehicle.  The
  clerk explained that the second male was on his way to the bathroom behind
  the building when the male wearing the ball cap took the purse.

       ¶  3.  That evening, a gas station clerk from another gas station on
  Putney Road called in response to police radio communications to report
  that the suspects had just been at his store in a blue car.  He noted that
  one of the individuals was wearing a hat with flames on it and provided the
  vehicle's make and license number.  A few minutes later, an officer pulled
  over a car matching that description on Putney Road.  Defendant was inside
  the vehicle along with Brian Whidden, the male wearing the ball cap.  The
  officer observed a flashlight and crowbar next to the front seat.  

        
       ¶  4.  An officer read defendant his Miranda rights, and defendant
  admitted that he had driven the car into the grocery store lot and had
  watched while Whidden smashed the pickup truck's window.  Defendant also
  admitted driving Whidden from the grocery store to the first gas station. 
  Defendant stated that he did not know if Whidden had stolen anything at
  that time.  Defendant informed the officer that Whidden had thrown the
  purses out of the car window while defendant drove the car over a bridge.

       ¶  5.  The State charged defendant with "participat[ing] in the
  commission of a misdemeanor . . . in violation of 13 V.S.A. Section 2502." 
  Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that "no statute nor Vermont case law .
  . . supports [a charge of aiding in the commission of a misdemeanor]," and
  even if such a charge exists, it is "unsupported by the facts."  The trial
  court held that it is well established that a "person who knowingly and
  intentionally participates in the commission of a misdemeanor may be
  prosecuted as if he were a principal."  The court also concluded that,
  based on the evidence,  the State's theory that defendant was acting as a
  wheel man for Whidden was a fair and reasonable inference supported by the
  evidence.  Thus, the trial court denied defendant's motion.  Defendant now
  appeals.

       ¶  6.  Defendant first argues that there is no statutory crime in
  Vermont of aiding in the commission of a misdemeanor, but only a crime for
  aiding in the commission of a felony pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 3.  Defendant
  argues that the common law crime of aiding in the commission of a
  misdemeanor was repealed when the Legislature enacted 13 V.S.A. § 3. 
  Because this claim involves only a question of law, our review is de novo. 
  State v. Koch, 169 Vt. 109, 112,