Case Title: State v. Sargent

Citation: 

Docket Number: 90-037

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 90-037


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Charles A. Sargent                           Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                             March Term, 1991


George T. Costes, J.

William Sorrell, Chittenden County State's Attorney, Burlington, and Pamela
  Hall Johnson, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for plaintiff-
  appellee

Kenneth Schatz, Acting Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate
  Attorney, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from his kidnapping conviction under 13
V.S.A. { 2401, repealed by 1989, No. 293 (Adj. Sess.), { 8. (FN1) He contends
that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the intent required
for conviction under { 2401.  We agree, and reverse and remand for a new
trial.
     The trial court's instructions on intent were as follows:
         [T]he State must prove that Mr. Sargent intended to
         confine Meg Howard.  In this regard the State must prove
         either, one, that Mr. Sargent consciously desired to
         physically confine Meg Howard against her will, or,
         second, Mr. Sargent knew or should have known at the
         time of the incident that his actions were almost
         certain to cause the physical confinement of Meg Howard
         against her will.  This means that to find the Defendant
         guilty of kidnapping, you must find that he acted know-
         ingly or purposefully with regard to his actions, which
         constituted forcibly confining the victim, Meg Howard.

              It is sufficient for the prosecution to prove
         either that the Defendant consciously desired the
         result, or that he knew or should have known that the
         result is practically certain to follow from his
         conduct. (Emphasis added).

At the charge conference defendant objected to the "should have known"
language.  He argued that its inclusion erroneously changed what was
properly a subjective inquiry into an objective one.  The trial court
declined to change the instruction, and the jury returned a verdict of
guilty.
     Section 2401's intent requirement was explored in State v. Audette, 149
Vt. 218,