Case Title: State v. Griswold

Citation: 172 Vt. 443, 782 A.2d 1144

Docket Number: 2000-154

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Griswold (2000-154); 172 Vt. 443; 782 A.2d 1144

[Filed 24-Aug-2001]

       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. 2000-154

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Rutland Circuit

Daniel Martin Griswold	                         May Term, 2001 

M. Patricia Zimmerman, J.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney 
  General, Montpelier, for Plainiff-Appellee.

Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Following a jury trial, defendant Daniel Griswold was 
  convicted of aggravated sexual assault in violation of 13 V.S.A.
  §3253(a)(7).  On  appeal, defendant claims: (1) the trial court erred by
  excluding evidence of the  victim's past domestic disputes and limiting
  expert testimony, thereby depriving  defendant of his constitutional right
  to a fair trial, and (2) the evidence presented by  the State was
  insufficient to find him guilty of aggravated sexual assault.  We  affirm.

       In the dark early morning hours of July 26, 1998, the victim was
  sexually  assaulted on a riverbank off a trail in Rutland.  At trial, she
  testified that she had  been out the night before and early that morning
  with friends at different bars in  Rutland.  Her friends then left her in
  an intoxicated state 

 

  at "Jilly's."  The victim did not remember leaving the bar, but when she 
  regained consciousness, she was restrained, face down on the ground with
  someone  penetrating her rectum.  While she screamed for him to stop, the
  perpetrator pushed  her face into the dirt and shoved rocks, grass and
  gravel into her mouth, which made  breathing difficult.  She was not able
  to look at him.  After he left, she ran home,  tearing off her ripped
  underwear on the way.  The victim was taken to the hospital  and treated
  for a number of injuries including facial swelling and abrasions, a bruise 
  from blunt force impact over her eye, contusions, bruises and abrasions on
  her back,  a bruise on her right hip and abrasions to her abdomen.

       When the police investigated the scene of the crime, they located the
  victim's  underwear and found a set of keys.  The keys were linked to
  defendant, whose  duplicate key was already in police custody for an
  unrelated matter.  The police  went to defendant's home, and he identified
  the key as his own.  He said that he had  talked with the victim and kissed
  her outside Jilly's the morning of the assault, but  denied any further
  interaction with her.

       Defendant later submitted to blood sampling for purposes of DNA
  testing.   He then retracted his earlier denial of sexual relations and
  stated that he had  consensual vaginal intercourse with the victim.  An
  examination of the victim  identified the presence of sperm in her anus. 
  No sperm was found in her vagina.   DNA testing was performed on samples
  taken from five different men under  investigation, including the victim's
  boyfriend.  Defendant was the only one who  could not be eliminated as the
  source of sperm.

       Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated sexual assault
  under 13  V.S.A. § 3253(a)(7).  At the close of the State's case, the
  defense moved for  judgment of acquittal which was denied.  At the end of
  the six-day trial, the jury  found defendant guilty.  He filed two
  post-trial

 

  motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, which were denied.  
  The court sentenced him to forty years to life imprisonment.  This appeal
  followed.

                                     I.

       As part of his defense, defendant sought to introduce evidence that
  the victim  and her boyfriend had a history of violence, and to argue that
  her injuries were  therefore attributable to a third party, her boyfriend,
  rather than defendant.  The trial  court excluded the evidence.

       While it is true, as defendant points out, that when "motive and
  opportunity  have been shown and . . . there is also some evidence to
  directly connect [a] third  person to the crime charged," evidence
  implicating a third party should be admitted.  State v. Grega, 168 Vt. 363,
  375,