Case Title: State v. Shippee

Citation: 176 Vt. 542, 2003 VT 106, 839 A.2d 566

Docket Number: 2002-081

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Shippee (2002-081); 176 Vt. 542; 839 A.2d 566

2003 VT 106

[Filed 05-Nov-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 106

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-081

                             JANUARY TERM, 2003

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
  Vernon T. Shippee	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 3910-7-98 Cncr

                                                Trial Judge: Benjamin W. Joseph

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant Vernon T. Shippee appeals his conviction after a
  jury found him guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct in violation of 13
  V.S.A. § 2601.  He argues on appeal that: (1) he was subjected to arbitrary
  and discriminatory enforcement because he was charged under 13 V.S.A. §
  2601, a felony, rather than under 13 V.S.A. § 2632, a misdemeanor; (2) the
  trial court erred by admitting, as signature evidence, a videotape and
  testimony regarding defendant's prior conduct at another store; (3) it was
  plain error for the court to admit a police officer's testimony because it
  impermissibly bolstered the credibility of the hearsay statements made by
  the child victim; and (4) the court erred in denying defendant's motion to
  require the State to produce the child victim as a witness.  We hold that
  the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under V.R.E. 403 when it
  admitted the evidence regarding defendant's prior conduct and, therefore,
  reverse and remand.  

       ¶  2.  The State charged defendant with lewd and lascivious conduct
  for exposing himself and masturbating in front of a young child at a
  department store.  The charge was based on the following alleged facts.  On
  May 31, 1998, T.P. (mother) was shopping at Wal-Mart with her five-year-old
  daughter, E.P., when a man, later identified as defendant, approached them. 
  According to the testimony, defendant followed them closely throughout the
  store.  Subsequently, on July 19, 1998, the family was watching a news
  story on television that showed defendant's picture in connection with a
  court case.  E.P., who was playing in the room during the news story,
  approached mother and said to her unexpectedly that the man on television
  was a "bad man" who "had his private parts sticking out" and "was
  scratching himself" when they were at Wal-Mart.  Mother promptly notified
  the police, and a police detective and SRS investigator interviewed E.P. at
  the police special investigations office.  Defendant was then arrested and
  eventually charged under 13 V.S.A. § 2601.  
   
       ¶  3.  Prior to trial, the State moved to introduce hearsay
  statements of E.P., pursuant to V.R.E. 804a.  Specifically, the State
  sought to introduce statements made by E.P. to her mother and the detective
  during the police interview.  In ruling that the child's statements were
  admissible hearsay under Rule 804a, the court noted the presence of
  "substantial indicia of trustworthiness sufficient to allow the jury to
  consider, weigh and dispose of the information." 

       ¶  4.  In February 2000, the State filed a "Notice of Prior Bad
  Acts" in which it stated its intent to introduce testimony by a loss
  prevention specialist at Ames Department Store that, on May 3, 1998, he
  observed, and recorded on closed circuit video, defendant approach a young
  child in the store and "play" with himself.  The court denied the motion,
  subject to further motion for introduction at trial, finding that the
  "unfair prejudicial effect [of the evidence] is not outweighed by its
  probative value."   

       ¶  5.  One week before trial, the State informed defendant's counsel
  by letter that the State was uncertain as to whether it would call E.P. to
  testify and that, therefore, defendant's counsel would have to subpoena
  E.P. if he wished to ensure her presence at trial.  Defendant requested
  that E.P. be required to testify on the morning of trial, and the court
  denied the motion as untimely.  During the jury trial, held on October 18,
  2000, the State again sought to introduce the videotape and testimony of
  the Ames employee.  After reviewing the tape, the trial judge granted the
  request, and allowed the State to admit the tape and testimony.  The jury
  returned a verdict of guilty.  

       ¶  6.  On October 20, 2000, two days after trial, defendant filed a
  motion to dismiss based on his argument that the State should have charged
  him with a prohibited act under 13 V.S.A. § 2632, a misdemeanor, instead of
  lewd and lascivious conduct under 13 V.S.A. § 2601, a felony.  The court
  denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

                                     I.

       ¶  7.  First, defendant claims he was subjected to arbitrary and
  discriminatory enforcement because he was charged with a felony under 13
  V.S.A. § 2601 instead of a misdemeanor under 13 V.S.A. § 2632, and that the
  court therefore erred by denying his motion to dismiss.  This argument
  lacks merit.  When there are overlapping criminal offenses with which a
  defendant could be charged based on the facts, it is within the
  prosecutor's discretion to choose among them.  State v. Perry, 151 Vt. 637,
  641, 563 A.2d 1007, 110 (1989); United States v. Batchelder,