Case Title: State v. Bacon

Citation: 167 Vt. 88, 702 A.2d 116

Docket Number: 96-548

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Bacon  (96-548); 167 Vt. 88; 702 A.2d 116

[Filed 29-Aug-1997]

       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.

                            No. 96-548

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Christopher L. Bacon                         March Term, 1997

Paul F. Hudson, J.

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, John Treadwell,
  Special Assistant Attorney General, and Joseph L. Winn, Assistant Attorney
  General, Waterbury, for plaintiff-appellant

       Jesse M. Corum IV of Gale, Corum & Stern, Brattleboro, for
  defendant-appellee.

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate
  Attorney, Montpelier, for amicus curiae Office of Defender General.

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
  (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       JOHNSON, J.   We consider for the second time the circumstances under
  which a presentence investigation report (PSI) should be disclosed to
  persons other than the defendant, defense counsel, and the attorney for the
  state.  See V.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(3).  In State v. LaBounty Nos. 96-180 & 96-191
  (Vt. Aug. 1, 1997), we held that PSIs are not subject to a qualified First
  Amendment right of access, and should not be routinely disclosed to the
  press and public.  Id., slip op. at 6.  We left open the question posed in
  this case: whether, and upon what showing, a third party should be granted
  access to a PSI.  The district court in this matter granted defense
  counsel's request for disclosure of the PSI of defendant's accomplice,
  Charles Gundlah, and of the PSIs of other individuals in Vermont who
  received sentences of life-without-parole in recent years.  The State,
  through the Department of Corrections, opposes disclosure and appeals the
  court's order.  We hold that a defendant seeking access to another
  individual's PSI must support

 

  the request with a plausible showing of materiality; upon such a showing,
  the district court should review the PSI and disclose only that
  information, if any, that is material to guilt or punishment.  Accordingly,
  we vacate the court's order requiring the Department to distribute the
  requested PSIs to counsel.  We conclude, however, that the court should
  review Gundlah's PSI in camera and disclose any information material to
  defendant's sentence.

                                     I.

       In April 1991, defendant and Charles Gundlah escaped together from a
  prison work crew and embarked on a brief but violent period of criminal
  activity, culminating in the murder of Robin Colson.  Following a jury
  trial, Gundlah was convicted of felony murder, see 13 V.S.A. § 2301, as
  well as a number of other charges related to the murder, and received a
  cumulative sentence of seventy-two years to life.  We recently affirmed
  Gundlah's felony-murder conviction.  State v. Gundlah, 8 Vt. L.W. 179, 179
  (1997).  Defendant was initially convicted as accessory to the murder and
  was sentenced to life-without-parole; we reversed that conviction because
  of an error in the jury charge.  See State v. Bacon, 163 Vt. 279, 283,