Case Title: State v. Barbera

Citation: 178 Vt. 498, 2005 VT 13, 872 A.2d 309

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Barbera (2003-144); 178 Vt. 498; 872 A.2d 309

2005 VT 13

[Filed 09-Feb-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER
   
                                 2005 VT 13

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-144

                              MARCH TERM, 2004

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
  John Barbera	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1496-10-01 Wmcr

                                                Trial Judge: Karen R. Carroll

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, based on a
  jury verdict, of sexual assault on a person under the age of sixteen, in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. § 3252(a)(3).  He contends: (1) the evidence was
  insufficient to support the judgment; and (2) the court violated his right
  to a fair trial by denying his pretrial motion to compel disclosure of the
  victim's mental health records and refusing to order a psychological
  evaluation of the victim.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  In August 2001, K.R. was in residential treatment at the
  Brattleboro Retreat.  She was thirteen years old, and had been in the
  custody of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services for a
  number of years.  Unhappy with the objections of staff to her plan to
  pierce her nose, K.R. ran away from the Retreat on August 13.  She
  eventually ended up at a nearby Wal-Mart, where she met defendant, who
  offered her cigarettes and drove her back to his house.  According to her
  testimony, K.R. was in the bathroom about to take a shower when defendant
  entered and kissed her.  A short time later, defendant asked his daughter,
  who was eight years old, to go outside.  He then put on a pornographic
  video and sat down to watch with K.R.  Over her objections, defendant then
  removed K.R.'s pants, attempted intercourse, ejaculated, and engaged in
  oral sex.  Later, defendant brought K.R. to a bus station, gave her
  cigarettes and money for a bus ticket to New York, and left.  K.R. rode the
  bus to New York City, where the next day she was taken into custody by the
  police and brought to Bellevue Hospital.  A forensic examination for sexual
  assault was performed, and the Brattleboro police were notified.  They
  picked her up that day and returned her to the Retreat, where she was
  interviewed by the police, her SRS caseworker, and her treating
  psychologist, Dr. Sacco-Laurens.  

       ¶  3.  Kathleen Faxon, who worked with defendant's daughter through
  the Big Sister Program in Brattleboro, testified that defendant later told
  her about the incident, claiming that "[a]ll I did was whip my dick out in
  front of [K.R.]." The forensic examination performed in New York confirmed
  the presence of semen in K.R.'s anal area.  K.R.'s journal for the period
  in question corroborated much of her testimony concerning the incident.

       ¶  4.  The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of sexual
  assault. (FN1)  Defendant was  sentenced to a term of fifteen to twenty
  years.  This appeal followed.  
                
       ¶  5.  Defendant first contends the evidence was insufficient to
  support the judgment of conviction of sexual assault based on contact
  between his mouth and the victim's vagina, as charged in the information,
  because the only evidence in this regard was the victim's testimony that
  defendant had kissed "[m]y crotch." This argument was not preserved for
  review on appeal.  Although defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on
  the basis of insufficient evidence at the close of the State's case, his
  only claim as to the sexual assault count was that the victim's testimony
  was uncorroborated.   Defendant also filed a post-verdict motion for
  judgment of acquittal in which he asserted a general claim of insufficient
  evidence, but again failed to argue that the evidence was insufficient to
  show contact between his mouth and the victim's vagina.   Accordingly, the
  claim was not preserved for review on appeal.  See State v. Crannell, 170
  Vt. 387, 407-08,