Case Title: State v. McGee

Citation: 163 Vt 162, 655 A.2d 729

Docket Number: 92-364

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-01-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_MCGEE.92-364; 163 Vt 162; 655 A.2d 729

[Filed 13-Jan-1995]

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
wellasformalrevision 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. 92-364


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit 2, Chittenden Circuit


Ronald McGee                                 October Term, 1994



Matthew I. Katz, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
 General,   Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee 

Charles Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.     Defendant Ronald McGee appeals his first-degree murder
conviction for killing William Bessette while perpetrating an attempted
robbery, 13 V.S.A.  2301.(FN1)  He argues for reversal based on several
asserted errors in the trial court's instructions to the jury and the court's
denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal.  We affirm. 

     In the early morning hours of June 4, 1991, William Bessette was shot
and killed outside the home of Ann Barbour in Essex Junction, Vermont. 
Barbour operated a "crack house," which defendant and his brother, Leroy,
visited on occasion.  Barbour had informed defendant 

 

that she believed Leroy had stolen some of her cocaine, and that she had
hired Bessette to retaliate by harming Leroy.  Concerned for Leroy's safety,
defendant, accompanied by his brother-in-law Samuel Hudson, and two friends,
David Shelby and Timothy Roarda, visited Leroy late in the evening on June 3
to warn him of Bessette's impending visit.  After speaking with Leroy,
defendant and his companions drove to Barbour's home, and en route, devised a
plan to steal Barbour's cocaine. 

     According to the plan, defendant would enter Barbour's home, converse
with the others, and determine where Barbour kept her cocaine cache.  Hudson
and Shelby would stay outside the house, while Roarda remained by the car to
keep lookout and serve as the getaway driver. When defendant believed the
time was right, he would signal Hudson and Shelby to enter the home. 
Defendant and Hudson would hold the occupants at gunpoint while Shelby would
take the drugs, whereupon the three would escape to the car and drive off
with Roarda. 

     As often happens in these situations, the scheme went awry.  Defendant
and his cohorts arrived at Barbour's home as planned to steal the cocaine. 
Defendant, armed with a concealed handgun, knocked and entered the residence.
 Hudson, who was carrying a rifle, remained outside the house with Shelby,
and Roarda waited by the car.  Once inside the home, defendant encountered
Barbour and Bessette, as well as Daniel Langevin, and two others.  Barbour
offered defendant some cocaine, which defendant accepted.  Defendant spoke
with Barbour about Leroy's situation, attempting to convince her not to send
Bessette after Leroy.  Barbour refused to call off Bessette, but agreed that
defendant could accompany Bessette to visit Leroy. Defendant remained inside
the home for some forty-five minutes while his accomplices remained outside
awaiting defendant's signal. 

     Shelby grew impatient with the apparent delay and decided to
investigate.  He entered Barbour's home under an assumed name, used cocaine
with the other occupants, and took defendant aside, suggesting to him that
they forget about robbing Barbour.  Defendant replied, "No."  Shortly
thereafter, defendant, Shelby, Bessette and Langevin left Barbour's house. 
When 

 

they stepped outside, they encountered Hudson with his rifle in hand. 
At this point, defendant told Hudson, "Come on, let's go." 

     Accounts of what happened next differed at trial.  Langevin and Shelby
testified that Hudson put his rifle against Bessette's back as Bessette
walked by him, which ultimately caused Bessette to draw his gun and aim it at
Hudson.  According to these witnesses, defendant then shot Bessette. 
Defendant and Hudson, however, testified that Bessette, upon seeing Hudson,
immediately pulled his gun and yelled, "Nigger you're dead!" whereupon
defendant drew his gun and shot Bessette. 

     After the shooting, defendant returned to Barbour's home.  He told
Barbour that Bessette had become excited and that he was concerned about
Bessette's behavior.  Defendant did not tell her about the shooting.  He
subsequently left the home and went to the car to meet Hudson, Shelby and
Roarda.  On the way out, defendant encountered Langevin standing next to
Bessette's body.  Defendant grabbed Langevin and told him not to tell anyone
what had happened. 

     Defendant then joined his three accomplices in the car.  Shelby asked
defendant if he had gotten the cocaine, and he responded that he had returned
to the house to try to do so, but had not succeeded.  The four circled the
block once and drove off.  Roarda testified that he drove around the block
before leaving because defendant and Shelby had urged him to return to
Barbour's home for the cocaine.  Roarda stated that after circling the block
he decided against stopping and chose to drive on. 

                                  I.

     Defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment
of acquittal because the State failed to establish that he killed Bessette
while perpetrating an attempted robbery.  He claims that the attempted
robbery had ended by the time he left the house and that the felony-murder
charge should therefore have been dismissed.  In reviewing the court's denial
of defendant's motion, we consider "whether the evidence presented by the
State, taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and excluding
modifying evidence, sufficiently and fairly 

 

supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  State v. Duranleau,
No. 93-168, slip op. at 1-2 (Vt. Sept. 30, 1994). 

     At trial, the State had to establish that Bessette was shot during an
attempted robbery. An attempt requires intent to commit a particular crime
and an overt act designed to carry out that intent.  State v. Curtis, 157 Vt.
629, 631, 603 A.2d 356, 357 (1991).  The act must advance the actor's conduct
beyond mere intent, and reach far enough toward accomplishing "the desired
result to amount to the commencement of the consummation."  State v. Boutin,
133 Vt. 531, 533,