Case Title: LaBounty v. State

Citation: 177 Vt. 635, 2005 VT 6, 869 A.2d 120

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
LaBounty v. State (2003-504); 177 Vt. 635; 869 A.2d 120

2005 VT 6

[Filed 12-Jan-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2005 VT 6

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-504

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2004

  Aime B. LaBounty	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Caledonia Superior Court
                                       }	
  State of Vermont	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 116-4-00 Cacv

                                                Trial Judge: M. Kathleen Manley

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

       ¶  1.  Petitioner, Aime LaBounty, appeals a superior court judgment
  denying his petition for postconviction relief alleging that his
  convictions for aggravated sexual assault were caused by the ineffective
  assistance of his trial counsel.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  On January 31, 1996, petitioner was convicted of two counts
  of aggravated sexual assault, each count involving a different minor
  victim.  The victims in the case had attended a daycare center run by
  petitioner's wife.  In February 1995, one child, B.M., disclosed to her
  mother that petitioner had put his "peepee" in her mouth.  B.M.'s mother
  phoned the mother of another child, S.J., who had also attended the daycare
  center.  After some questioning, the mother asked S.J. if petitioner had
  engaged in similar conduct with her and she responded "No, he made me suck
  it."  Both victims were four years old at the time of the relevant acts. 
  The mothers reported the incidents, and the police and SRS workers
  interviewed the children and the mothers.  Based on the interviews, the
  State charged defendant with two counts of aggravated sexual assault.  

       ¶  3.  Petitioner was represented by Attorney Rachael Hexter.  He
  consistently maintained his innocence.  He explained that B.M.'s allegation
  may have arisen from a misunderstanding following an incident where B.M.
  entered the bathroom while he was using it.  He also explained that S.J.'s
  parents may have fabricated her story in retaliation for other conflicts
  between him and the parents.

       ¶  4.  Counsel deposed several witnesses in preparation for trial, but
  did not depose the minor victims.  The State did not intend to call the
  victims as witnesses, relying instead on the admission of the testimony of
  the mothers and others who had interviewed the victims.  See V.R.E. 804a.
  (FN1)  The main defense trial strategy was to concentrate on the lack of
  corroboration of the complainants' stories.  In addition, at this point,
  petitioner did not want the children to be deposed.

       ¶  5.  Before trial, counsel made several unsuccessful motions,
  including one to sever the two charges and one to exclude the statements of
  the victims, which the State sought to admit through others under Rule
  804a.  Before arguing the Rule 804a motion, counsel did not have an
  opportunity to listen to the tape of the SRS worker interview of S.J.  The
  case went to trial and resulted in a hung jury.  In preparing for a
  retrial, counsel again decided not to depose the children and used the same
  defense strategy.  At the second trial, the jury convicted on both counts. 
  Petitioner appealed the convictions, and we affirmed.  State v. LaBounty,
  168 Vt. 129, 131,