Case Title: State v. Coyle

Citation: 178 Vt. 580, 2005 VT 58, 878 A.2d 1062

Docket Number: 2004-098

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Coyle (2004-098); 178 Vt. 580; 878 A.2d 1062

2005 VT  58

[Filed 12-May-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT  58

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-098

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2004

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }	District Court of Vermont,
       v.	                       }	Unit No. 1, Windsor  Circuit
                                       }	
  Bradford Coyle	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 332-4-97 Wrcr

                                                Trial Judge: Theresa S. DiMauro

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant appeals the Windsor District Court's conclusion
  that he violated a condition of his probation by failing to complete sex
  offender treatment.  The court found that the director of the treatment
  program discharged defendant from the group because of his willful failure
  to follow the group's rule that specifically prohibits unapproved contact
  with defendant's victims and other minor children.  Defendant claims that
  the trial court erred by failing to make an express finding that
  defendant's contact with his victim was intentional and not inadvertent.
  Defendant claims that, without such a finding, his termination from his sex
  offender treatment program in violation of his probation cannot be upheld. 
  We conclude that the court did in fact make the required,
  adequately-supported findings and conclusions.  Therefore, we affirm.

       ¶  2.  In 1997, defendant pled guilty to and was convicted of lewd
  and lascivious conduct with his nine year old stepdaughter J.N.  He
  received a sentence of three to five years in prison, which was all
  suspended.  In lieu of incarceration, the court placed defendant on
  supervised probation.

       ¶  3.  The court imposed a number of standard and special probation
  conditions including condition 14, which required defendant to "attend,
  [and] participate in sex offender treatment as directed by your probation
  officer."   Special condition 4 elaborated on defendant's obligation under
  condition 14, mandating that defendant "shall attend and satisfactorily
  participate in sexual behavior counseling and will not be discharged
  without satisfactory completion all as determined by your counselor and
  probation officer."  In addition, special condition 14 prohibited defendant
  from having "contact with the victim(s) in this case," including "any
  physical, visual, written or telephone contact with such persons." 
  (Emphasis added).
   
       ¶  4.  By April 2003, Mr. Coyle had been on probation for a period
  of six years.  During that time, he had participated in the sex offender
  treatment program run by Kieran Zito.  Though he had moved on to the
  aftercare phase of the program, an incident in Feburary 2003, involving
  unsupervised contact with a minor, led Zito to impose a stricter
  supervision regime requiring defendant to report on his progress weekly
  instead of monthly.  Despite defendant's relative success in the program,
  he did have a history of violating the group's child contact guidelines,
  and as a result had been warned or placed on probation several times. 

       ¶  5.  On April 10, 2003, defendant was arrested for violating,
  among others, special condition 14's prohibition against all forms of
  contact with any of defendant's victims.  J.N. complained of the contact
  after encountering defendant at the Price Chopper.  She averred that she
  was getting out of her car in the Price Chopper parking lot when
  defendant's car pulled in diagonally across from hers.  J.N. testified that
  defendant made eye contact with her and walked into the store directly
  behind her.  She further stated that as she walked to the customer service
  desk, defendant followed her and stood directly behind her in the line. 
  Her statement gives no indication that he made any attempt to initiate
  conversation or further eye contact with her once inside the store,
  although he did have to move out of her way as she was leaving the customer
  service area.  When the police arrived to arrest defendant later that day,
  he claimed that he was oblivious to any victim contact that happened
  earlier that day.  When he was told that it occurred at the Price Chopper,
  he insisted that he had not recognized any of his victims there.

       ¶  6.  Following defendant's arrest for the alleged contact
  violation, Zito sent a letter to defendant's probation officer, advising
  that he was terminating defendant from the treatment group.  The letter
  states that the "basis for this termination arises from Mr. Coyle's recent
  unapproved contact with a minor child, it's important to note that this
  contact involved his victim of record."  The letter goes on to recount
  another incident involving unsupervised contact with a minor earlier that
  year, and concludes with Zito's observation that "Mr. Coyle appears to be
  engaging in a willful pattern of disregard for his treatment guidelines
  prohibiting contacts with minors."  Based on this notice of termination,
  defendant was charged with a second violation of probation, specifically
  condition 14's requirement that defendant participate in sex offender
  treatment as directed by his probation officer.
        
       ¶  7.  The district court held a violation of probation merits
  hearing on both the alleged contact and termination of treatment
  violations.  During the hearing, the court heard testimony from Zito, J.N.,
  and defendant.  The testimony focused on two main areas: defendant's
  performance history in the treatment group, and the events surrounding the
  alleged Price Chopper contact with J.N.  At the conclusion of the hearing,
  the court ruled that the State had met its burden by showing that defendant
  had been terminated from his sex offender treatment program in violation of
  condition 14.  The court made no determination on the alleged violation of
  the no-contact probation condition, although it did consider whether the
  evidence supported Zito's conclusion that defendant violated the no-contact
  policies of the treatment group.  The court then considered whether
  defendant had persuaded the court that his termination from the group was
  not the result of his willful conduct, but instead resulted from factors
  beyond his control.  After recounting defendant's history of violating the
  treatment group's no-contact policies, the court analyzed the two incidents
  specifically referenced in Zito's letter of termination.  The court found
  that defendant's assertion that he did not recognize J.N. at the Price
  Chopper lacked credibility.  Accordingly, the court held that defendant had
  not met his burden of showing that his expulsion from treatment resulted
  from factors beyond his control because his failure to remove himself from
  proximity to J.N. after recognizing her was contrary to group policy and
  amply justified Zito's decision to terminate him. 

       ¶  8.  The State bears the burden of proving probation violations by
  a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389, 398,