Case Title: State v. Burgess

Citation: 2007 VT 18

Docket Number: 2005-199

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Burgess (2005-199)

2007 VT 18

[Filed 23-Feb-2007]


       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.

                                 2007 VT 18

                                No. 2005-199

  State of Vermont                              Supreme Court

                                                On Appeal from
       v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                                Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit

  Timothy Burgess                               September Term, 2006


  Mark J. Keller, J.


  Diane C. Wheeler, Franklin County Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Timothy R. Burgess, Pro Se, Swanton, Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.  Defendant Timothy Burgess appeals pro se from
  his conviction of sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct against
  his minor stepdaughter, J.H.  He argues that the trial court committed
  reversible error by: (1) admitting hearsay evidence; (2) admitting evidence
  of his prior sexual conduct; (3) allowing the prosecutor to ask questions
  that were contrary to pretrial rulings and based on facts not in evidence;
  (4) allowing the Franklin County State's Attorney to testify; and (5)
  denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and a new trial.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  Defendant was charged with sexual assault and lewd and
  lascivious conduct in January 2004.  The information alleged that defendant
  placed his penis in J.H.'s hand between December 1997 and December 1998,
  when J.H. was ten years old, and that defendant inserted his fingers into
  J.H.'s vulva between February 2003 and December 2003, when J.H. was
  sixteen.

       ¶  3.  The following evidence was presented at trial.  J.H. lived with
  her brother, her mother, Lisa Burgess, and defendant.  In April 1998, Mrs.
  Burgess moved in with another man, leaving J.H. and her stepbrother with
  defendant.  During the month that Mrs. Burgess was gone, J.H. woke up
  several times to find defendant's penis in her hand.  She testified that
  defendant used her hand to masturbate.  In September 2000, J.H. told
  several friends about defendant's behavior.  Shortly thereafter, she was
  interviewed by police and officials from the Department for Children and
  Families (DCF).  At that time, J.H. denied that anything improper occurred.

       ¶  4.  J.H. testified at trial that defendant began touching her again
  in the fall of 2003, around the same time that her mother again became
  involved with a different man.  She stated that she woke up numerous times
  to find defendant's fingers in her vagina.  In late December 2003, J.H.
  told her friend Amber Felisko that she was planning to run away.  According
  to J.H., Amber understood that she was leaving because she could no longer
  take defendant's behavior.  J.H. ran away with her boyfriend shortly
  thereafter, testifying that she left to get away from defendant.  J.H. was
  discovered in Pennsylvania the following day, and her biological father,
  her father's girlfriend Missy Munro, and defendant, went to pick her up. 
  J.H. testified that on the ride back to Vermont, she told Ms. Munro that
  defendant had been touching her inappropriately.  After learning of J.H.'s
  disclosures, J.H.'s mother eventually told defendant to move out, and the
  police were contacted.
   
       ¶  5.  Mrs. Burgess also testified at trial.  She stated that she
  confronted defendant about the abuse shortly after J.H.'s return from
  Pennsylvania.  She told defendant not to deny abusing J.H. because it was
  "the same stuff" that he had done to her while she was sleeping, and "it's
  familiar."  Mrs. Burgess testified that defendant told her that "it all
  started" when she left him for another man in April 1998, and that he told
  her "it was just my fingers."  According to Mrs. Burgess, defendant
  admitted to her that he might be attracted to J.H., that it was "definitely
  a girl thing," and that he had not abused their son.  Mrs. Burgess stated
  that, after ordering defendant to move out, she found a note from him that
  stated "Lisa, I'm sorry, I love you, I'm seeking help."  Defendant verbally
  reiterated to Mrs. Burgess that he needed to get some help, and told her
  that he hoped she would stand by him.

       ¶  6.  At trial, defendant denied abusing J.H., and testified that
  after retrieving J.H. from Pennsylvania, he made some "harsh statements" to
  her about her boyfriend.  He stated that on the car ride home, J.H. looked
  over at him and whispered that she would "get [him]."  Defendant admitted
  leaving the note described above, but asserted that what he had been
  "sorry" about was that Mrs. Burgess believed that the abuse could have
  happened, and that he was "seeking help" in dealing with her extramarital
  affairs.  He denied confessing to his wife.  The jury found defendant
  guilty of both counts, and this appeal followed. 
   
       ¶  7.  Defendant first argues that the court committed reversible
  error by allowing numerous witnesses to testify to J.H.'s hearsay
  statements. (FN1)  He maintains that evidence of the victim's prior
  consistent statements should have been excluded because, as of October
  2002, J.H. had a motive to lie to explain her trip to Pennsylvania with her
  boyfriend.  Defendant asserts that because this case presented a
  credibility contest, the improperly admitted evidence cannot be considered
  harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 
                    
       ¶  8.  Defendant failed to object to any of this evidence at trial,
  and we find no plain error.  See State v. Pelican, 160 Vt. 536, 538,