Case Title: State v. Dunbar

Citation: 172 Vt. 557, 772 A.2d 533

Docket Number: 99-520

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Dunbar (99-520); 172 Vt. 557; 772 A.2d 533

[Filed 10-Apr-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1999-520

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

State of Vermont 	             }	APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.	                             }	District Court of Vermont,
                                     }	Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
                                     }
Jeffrey Dunbar	                     }
                                     }	DOCKET NO. 113-2-99 Cacr

                                        Trial Judge: Alan W. Cook 

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

       Defendant Jeffrey Dunbar appeals from a felony conviction for a second
  offense of violating  an abuse prevention order under 13 V.S.A. § 1030 in
  the Caledonia District Court.  On appeal,  defendant argues that (1) the
  felony conviction was in error because the jury should not have been 
  reconvened after being dismissed, and (2) that the trial court's
  instructions to the jury were unclear  and confusing.  We agree as to (1)
  and conclude that issue (2) has not been preserved.  We strike the  felony
  conviction leaving a misdemeanor conviction.  

       On February 16, 1999, defendant was charged with violation of an abuse
  prevention order by  indirect contact with his wife, Donna Dunbar, on
  February 15.  In the information, the State charged  that defendant had
  been convicted of a similar offense in 1997 and sought a felony conviction
  under  the enhanced penalty provision of 13 V.S.A. § 1030(b).  Jury
  selection was conducted on May 18,  1999, and the trial was held on May 21,
  1999.  

       No evidence of defendant's prior conviction was presented during the
  trial.  The jury returned  a guilty verdict.  The State did not seek a
  post-verdict opportunity to show the prior conviction, and  defendant did
  not raise the issue.  The court discharged the jury and ordered a
  presentence  investigation.  The sentencing was set for July 14, 1999.

       Defendant subsequently filed a motion for judgment of acquittal,
  raising for the first time that  the State had failed to prove the prior
  conviction and arguing that defendant could be convicted only  of a
  misdemeanor, first offense.  The court denied the motion and ordered the
  jury recalled to  determine whether defendant had been convicted of a prior
  violation of an abuse prevention order.   Defendant opposed the recall,
  arguing that once it was discharged, the jury could not be recalled.  
  After a brief trial on October 9, 1999, the jury determined that defendant
  had been convicted of  violating an abuse prevention order in 1997.

       Although we have not interpreted § 1030(b) in this context, the State
  does not dispute that the  jury had to find the predicate conviction beyond
  a reasonable doubt in order for the court to impose  the greater sentence
  authorized by that statute.  As early as State v. Spaulding, 61 Vt. 505, 17 A. 844  (1889), this Court held that the jury must determine the existence
  of the predicate 

 

  conviction as part of the charged offense.  See id. at 515, 17 A.  at 848. 
  The procedure is set out in  State v. Cameron, 126 Vt. 244,