Case Title: State v. Pelican

Citation: 160 Vt. 536, 632 A.2d 24

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-10-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_PELICAN.91-355; 160 Vt. 536; 632 A.2d 24


 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. 91-355


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Franklin Circuit

 Terrance L. Pelican                          October Term, 1992



 George T. Costes, J.

 Howard E. VanBenthuysen, Franklin County State's Attorney, St. Albans,
   for plaintiff-appellee

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney,
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.    Defendant Terrance L. Pelican appeals his voluntary
 manslaughter conviction, claiming several errors in the court's
 instructions to the jury.  Defendant contends that (1) the court
 erroneously instructed that the evidence of diminished capacity could defeat
 proof of malice only, (2) the court erroneously directed the jury to
 convict defendant if the jury rejected the self-defense theory, (3) the
 self-defense instruction was incomplete because it did not adequately
 present the self-defense theory of the case to the jury, (4) the court
 erroneously directed the jury on how to reconcile conflicting testimony, and
 (5) the court committed prejudicial error by charging the jury that
 defendant's flight was evidence of guilt.  We affirm.
      Defendant and the victim had been friends who lived on the same floor
 of a hotel.  Defendant, the victim, and others had been drinking alcohol
 throughout the day and into the evening.  Defendant and the victim were
 involved in an altercation where the victim viciously assaulted defendant.
 After some time had passed, defendant shot the victim at close range with a
 shotgun.  Immediately after the shooting, defendant fled the scene of the
 crime.  Upon his arrest, defendant was charged with second-degree murder.
 Defendant asserted the defenses of self-defense and diminished capacity from
 intoxication.
      Defendant's first two contentions ÄÄ that there was an erroneous
 diminished-capacity charge and that the trial court erroneously directed the
 jury to convict him if it rejected the self-defense theory ÄÄ were not
 preserved for our review.  Defendant failed to make a "succinct recitation
 of [the] specific itemized objection" following the instruction, as required
 by V.R.Cr.P. 30.  State v. Wheelock, __ Vt. __, __, 609 A.2d 972, 975
 (1992).  Although the diminished capacity claim was mentioned during the
 charge conference, defendant's attorney did not object following the charge
 to the jury.
      Anticipating this shortcoming, defendant points out that the Wheelock
 decision was handed down after the trial in this case, and to apply it
 retroactively would be unfair.  Defendant claims that his counsel's
 preservation method comported with practice prevailing at the time.  We
 disagree.  Our rule and case law required an objection following the
 instructions to preserve the issue for appeal.  See State v. Roberts, 154
 Vt. 59, 71, 574 A.2d 1248, 1253 (1990) ("'A claimed error in the jury
 instructions can be raised on appeal only if, after the delivery of the
 charge, the aggrieved party made specific objection, including a clear
 statement of the matter to which he objects and the grounds of the
 objection.'")(quoting State v. Lettieri, 149 Vt. 340, 342,