Case Title: In re Nash

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                No. 88-484



In re Douglas A. Nash                        Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Bennington Superior Court

                                             May Term, 1989


Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

Michael Rose, St. Albans, for petitioner-appellee

Deborah A. Barnard, Bennington County Deputy State's Attorney, Bennington,
  and Jo-Ann Gross, Office of State's Attorneys and Sheriff's Department,
  Montpelier, for respondent-appellant


PRESENT: Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.   The State of Vermont appeals from a post-conviction relief
order vacating petitioner's conviction for attempted sexual assault and
granting a new trial, based on the bias of a juror.  We reverse.
                                   I.
     Following his conviction on October 15, 1982, petitioner moved for
post-conviction relief, contending that a juror at his trial "did withhold
information [during the voir dire proceedings], and the information withheld
was 'capable of producing prejudice.'"  At the voir dire the juror in
question, Pamela Corcoran, testified in open court that her knowledge about
the crime was limited: "All I heard, was that it happened.  I didn't hear
of any particulars."  When she was asked whether it would be "fair to say,
that you really don't know anything about the case, other than a charge was
brought," she answered, "Right."  During subsequent voir dire in chambers,
the prospective juror testified that "[a]ll I heard, was that an incident
had happened on Main Street in an apartment.  That was it."
     After conviction, petitioner learned that Corcoran had heard of the
events in question through a conversation with Donna Bailey, a State's wit-
ness.  Depositions were taken of both Corcoran and Bailey at the Bennington
County Courthouse.  Asked about any conversation with Bailey, Corcoran
testified:
         Okay.  As a matter of fact she said to me as I was
         walking down the street -- did you hear that somebody
         tried to get raped last night and I said no.  She said
         they did next door and that was the end of the conver-
         sation.

Bailey's account of the brief conversation was:
         Q:  [C]an you just tell us basically what you said and
             what she said to you, what you told her and -- ?
         A:  [Corcoran] just asked me -- she heard a lot of
             screams -- and she asked me what went on and I told
             her what I saw and that I heard a lot of loud
             screams and stuff.

             . . . .

         Q:  Okay.  did you tell her that you were a witness to
             some of this?
         A:  Yeah I told her I saw everything.

             . . . .

         Q:  [Corcoran] said that she heard screams?
         A:  Yes.  I said yes it was the tenant right next door
             and that I saw everything from my bedroom window,
             what went on, the screams and everything.  I thought
             at first it was screams from the Villager [sic]
             because you hear all kinds of noises and I just let
             it go and it just kept getting louder hollering and
             yelling.

At the conclusion of her deposition, Bailey was asked:
                   Q:  And when you say you saw everything did you tell
                       [Corcoran] what you saw?
                   A:  No I didn't say anything -- what I just told you  --
                       I didn't say anything.

                   Q:  So you didn't say I saw the man doing this and the
                       girl doing that?
                   A:  No.

     Based on these depositions, the trial court concluded that Corcoran
"did withhold information [during voir dire], and the information withheld
was 'capable of producing prejudice.'"  The court also relied on the addi-
tional factors that "[t]here is even an indication that [Corcoran] heard
the victim's screams during the actual commission of the crime" and that
Corcoran testified in the deposition that Bailey had a way of "stretching
things" and was a "gossip" and "busybody," despite stating at voir dire that
there was nothing that would cause her to give greater or lesser weight to
Bailey's testimony at trial.  The court ruled in petitioner's favor on his
motion for post-conviction relief, vacated the conviction, and granted a new
trial.  The present appeal ensued.
     The State argues on appeal that Corcoran truthfully answered every
question put to her, and that her failure to reveal the identity of the
person who told her of the incident in question was the result of defense
counsel's failure to inquire.  Petitioner counters that the reviewing
court's findings are not clearly erroneous and that they reasonably support
the court's conclusions.
                                   II.
     Initially, we address whether the reviewing court's findings are
adequately supported by the record.  In order to address the issue, we must
ascertain the appropriate standard of review.  Normally, the trial court is
the judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and its factual findings
will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.  See In re Fadden, 148 Vt.
116, 119,