Case Title: State v. Carrasquillo

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Carrasquillo (2000-438); 173 Vt. 557; 795 A.2d 1141

[Filed 22-Jan-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-438

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                       }
Edward Carrasquillo	               }	DOCKET NO. 6727-11-99CnCr

                                                Trial Judge:  Shireen A. Fisher
	
             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This is an appeal by defendant Carrasquillo from the trial court's
  limitation of Carrasquillo's  cross examination of a State's witness who
  had allegedly assaulted Carrasquillo subsequent to the  events underlying
  this appeal.  Defendant also argues on appeal that the evidence presented
  at trial  was quantitatively insufficient, as a matter of law, to satisfy
  the "substantial period" element of  Vermont's kidnapping statute, 13
  V.S.A. § 2404(3)(C).  We affirm.

       Defendant Carrasquillo was an inmate at the South Burlington
  Correctional Facility when he  was charged, under a four-count information,
  with aggravated assault on Corrections Officer  Charnley, aggravated
  assault with intent to prevent said law enforcement officer from performing
  a  lawful duty, attempted escape, and kidnapping.  The charges against
  Carrasquillo arose from an  altercation involving himself, another inmate,
  Officer Charnley and a Nurse Brannagan who worked  at the facility.  The
  altercation began when Nurse Brannagan, accompanied by Officer Charnley, 
  began dispensing medication to inmate Carrasquillo at his cell in the
  facility's "lockdown" unit.   Carrasquillo was acting strangely:  taking
  his medicine slowly, asking a lot of questions, stepping out  of his cell,
  and insisting that he be allowed to go up the hall to look for a pair of
  sneakers he claimed  was missing.  He then stated he did not feel well and
  fell towards the hallway.  As Officer Charnley  attempted to close the cell
  door, Carrasquillo pulled a sharpened toothbrush, commonly referred to as 
  a "shank," from his pocket and ordered the officer into the cell.  A
  physical struggle between Officer  Charnley and Carrasquillo ensued during
  which Carrasquillo's cell mate, on Carrasquillo's orders,  grabbed Nurse
  Brannagan by the neck, restraining her.  Other officers arrived at the
  scene as Officer  Charnley and Carrasquillo continued to struggle and Nurse
  Brannagan was held "in a hostage  situation position."  Carrasquillo then
  stabbed Officer Charnley in the head with the shank.  Both  Carrasquillo
  and the other inmate were ultimately returned to the cell.  Soon
  thereafter, Carrasquillo  was moved to a more secure facility.  During the
  transfer, while Carrasquillo was in restraints,  Officer Charnley
  approached Carrasquillo and struck him.  Officer Charnley was subsequently 
  discharged from employment by the facility, and criminal charges were filed
  against him based on  this incident.

 

       At trial on the four-count information against Carrasquillo, Officer
  Charnley served as a  witness for the State.  As a preliminary matter, the
  State brought a motion in limine to preclude  Carrasquillo from introducing
  evidence that witness Officer Charnley: "(1) has a pending charge of 
  simple assault in which defendant is the alleged victim, and (2) was
  recently terminated from the  Department of Corrections following an
  internal investigation into that alleged simple assault, and  (3) any
  reference to any civil suit that may or may not be pending regarding the
  alleged assault."   Carrasquillo objected to the State's motion, arguing
  that the alleged assault demonstrates the witness'  bias and motive for
  testifying.  He noted, however, that he did not intend to "get into the
  facts" of the  assault.  The State conceded that Carrasquillo would be
  permitted to question Officer Charnley about  "all the sources of bias and
  his anger towards Mr. Carrasquillo" for having stabbed him with the  shank. 
  The court granted the motion in part, and denied it in part, ruling that,
  defense counsel could  inquire on the issue of bias, "without getting into
  the facts of the subsequent incident," and that  defense counsel could  ask
  Officer Charnley "whether or not it's true that Mr. Carrasquillo has made 
  allegations against him regarding a subsequent incident" which could
  subject him to civil and  criminal liability.   

       During trial Carrasquillo was able to fully cross-examine Officer
  Charnley on issues of any  bias or animosity he may have had towards him. 
  Carrasquillo did question Officer Charnley as to  whether he was exposed to
  any criminal and civil liability as a result of the allegations made by 
  Carrasquillo.  At the close of evidence, Carrasquillo moved for a judgment
  of acquittal on both the  kidnapping and attempted escape charge, which was
  denied.  The jury found Carrasquillo guilty of  three out of four charges:
  aggravated assault, kidnapping, and attempted escape.
 
       Carrasquillo argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting
  the State's motion in limine  and thereby refusing to allow defense counsel
  to cross-examine Officer Charnley about the  circumstances surrounding
  Officer Charnley's purported assault on Carrasquillo.  Carrasquillo cites 
  V.R.E. 608(b), which allows the introduction, on cross-examination, of
  probative evidence of  specific instances of the conduct of a witness to
  prove the witness' character for truthfulness or  untruthfulness, for
  support of the proposition that evidence of Officer Charnley's assault on 
  Carrasquillo would be probative of Officer Charnley's character for
  untruthfulness.   Regardless of  the validity of Carrasquillo's assertion
  that evidence of animosity is probative of one's character for 
  truthfulness, we do not reach the merits of that claim as we hold that
  Carrasquillo failed to preserve  for appellate review his claim that the
  trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of Officer  Charnley.

       "To properly preserve an issue for appeal a party must present the
  issue with specificity and  clarity in a manner which gives the trial court
  a fair opportunity to rule on it."  State v. Ben-Mont  Corp., 163 Vt. 53,
  61,