Case Title: State v. Oren

Citation: 162 Vt. 331, 647 A.2d 1009

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_OREN.93-337; 162 Vt. 331; 647 A.2d 1009

[Opinion Filed July 1, 1994]


 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. 93-337


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

 Wanita L. Oren                               May Term, 1994




 Linda Levitt, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
   General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

 Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, P.C., Barre, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.  Defendant Wanita Oren appeals her conviction following a
 jury trial for hindering a law-enforcement officer, 13 V.S.A. { 3001.  We
 affirm.
      Around 6:00 in the evening of February 8, 1989, a Washington County
 deputy sheriff went to the Northfield home of defendant and her husband to
 serve civil process.  The deputy was not wearing a uniform and drove an
 unmarked Sheriff's Department cruiser.  She was accompanied by her fourteen-
 year-old son.  The deputy proceeded past the gate at the entrance to
 defendant's farm and down the access road to the dooryard just outside the
 house.  Defendant drove up in a pickup truck and parked so to block the

 

 deputy's exit, and then ran toward the deputy's car.  Screaming obscenities,
 defendant accused the deputy of trespassing and demanded identification.
 The deputy explained that she was there to serve process on defendant and
 her husband, and produced her badge and identification.  Defendant tried to
 grab the badge, and told her husband to call the Northfield police.
 Defendant then went into the house.  The deputy became fearful and tried to
 maneuver around defendant's truck, but succeeded only in getting her car
 stuck in a snowbank.  Defendant then reappeared, screamed accusations that
 the deputy had hit her truck, and pounded on the hood and windshield of the
 cruiser.
      The police arrived one-half hour later and helped the deputy extricate
 the cruiser.  The deputy followed the police out the driveway, stopping
 before she reached the road.  She placed the papers on the ground and
 announced that the Orens had been served.  Defendant drove up from behind,
 ran to the cruiser, and as the deputy was driving through the gate,
 defendant pushed the gate, hitting the side of the cruiser.  Defendant then
 jumped on the hood of the cruiser and refused to get down.  The deputy
 slowly drove through the gate, and defendant slid off the hood.
      Defendant originally was charged with two counts of impeding a public
 officer, 13 V.S.A. { 3001, and one count of simple assault on a police
 officer, 13 V.S.A. {{ 1023, 1028.  All three counts were dismissed for lack
 of probable cause.  The State appealed, and this Court reinstated the two
 counts of impeding a public officer.  See State v. Oren, No. 90-213 (Vt.
 Nov. 9, 1990).  The count alleging that defendant had impeded one of the
 Northfield police officers was dismissed before trial, and defendant
 subsequently was convicted of hindering the deputy in serving process.

 

      Defendant then moved for and was granted a new trial, based on newly
 discovered evidence that the deputy's commission as deputy sheriff had
 expired at the time of the incident, which meant that she was not a public
 officer for purposes of 13 V.S.A. { 3001.  Based on this evidence,
 defendant moved to dismiss, alleging that the State could not prove a prima
 facie case.  The motion was denied, defendant appealed, and this Court
 affirmed, ruling that despite the lapsed commission the State could make its
 case based on the de facto public officer doctrine.  See State v. Oren, ___
 Vt. ___, ___,