Case Title: State v. Bacon

Citation: 163 Vt 279, 658 A.2d 54

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_BACON.92-534; 163 Vt 279; 658 A.2d 54

[Filed 17-Feb-1995]

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. 92-534


State of Vermont                                   Supreme Court

                                                   On Appeal from
          v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                                   Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Christopher Bacon                                  March Term, 1994



Paul F. Hudson, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
Attorney General, Montpelier, and Dan Davis, Windham County State's Attorney,
and Karen Carroll, Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for
plaintiff-appellee 

Robert R. Bent of Zuccaro, Willis & Bent, St. Johnsbury, for defendant-appellant

Robert Appel, Defender General, Montpelier, for amicus curiae Office of
Defender General 


PRESENT:   Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     MORSE, J.   Defendant Christopher Bacon appeals his conviction of being
an accessory to the murder of Robin Colson, committed during a burglary of
her residence in Newfane, as well as seventeen other convictions associated
with the murder.  As a result of the felony-murder conviction, he was
sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.  Defendant claims error in the
jury instructions; he also contends that he was denied effective assistance
of 



counsel, and that his confession was involuntary and was taken in
violation of his Miranda rights.  We reject defendant's
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel and Miranda arguments, but reverse his
murder conviction because of error in the instructions; the other seventeen
convictions are affirmed. 

                                     I.

     On April 8, 1991, defendant and Charles Gundlah, both inmates at the
Woodstock Correctional Facility, escaped together from a correctional work
crew.  The men made their way to Newfane, where they broke into unoccupied
seasonal camps over the next few days and found food and lodging.  Following
his arrest, defendant related the circumstances surrounding Colson's death to
police in a tape-recorded statement that was presented as evidence at his
trial. The statement provided the following version of how the murder
occurred. 

     In one camp they had broken into, the men found and read a neighborhood
watch directory, which indicated that Colson lived alone in the area
year-round.  They then formulated a plan to steal Colson's car.  The plan
contemplated that defendant would enter the house and brandish a metal bar in
order to intimidate Colson.  On April 12, the men went to Colson's house,
Gundlah carrying a knife and defendant the metal bar. 

     After arriving at the house, however, defendant became skittish over the
robbery. Gundlah reacted by exchanging the knife for the metal bar defendant
was carrying.  According to defendant, Gundlah then went into the house and
closed the front door.  When defendant entered the house a few moments later,
he saw Gundlah strike Colson on the head with the bar, and then, when Colson
was on the floor, place the bar over her throat and stand on it.  At
Gundlah's direction, defendant closed off Colson's dogs in another room. 
Colson made some noise and Gundlah urged defendant to stab her.  When
defendant declined, Gundlah grabbed the knife from his hands and stabbed
Colson to death.  Thereupon, the men stole money from Colson's purse and
cleaned up blood stains.  They later stole an ATV from a nearby camp to
transport the body into the woods, where they dug a grave.  After disposing
of the body, they returned to Colson's house and took her car. 

     The two men drove Colson's car to Massachusetts.  After abandoning the
car, they returned to Vermont several days later with defendant's former
girlfriend, April Coldwell. Defendant and Gundlah were arrested in Rutland
when a police officer was summoned to assist Coldwell after she locked her
keys in her car. 

                                     II.

     Claiming he harbored no murderous intent, defendant argues that the
court erred by instructing the jury that he could be convicted based solely
upon Gundlah's murderous intent. 

                                    A.

     At the outset, we note that defendant's objection to the intent
instruction was not properly preserved because it was not specifically
renewed after the charge.  See V.R.Cr.P. 30 (to preserve claim of error,
party must object "before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating
distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection");
see State v. Pelican, 160 Vt. 536, 538,