Case Title: State v. Franklin

Citation: 179 Vt. 521, 2005 VT 90, 883 A.2d 783

Docket Number: 2003-280

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Franklin (2003-280); 179 Vt. 521; 883 A.2d 783

2005 VT 90

[Filed 02-Aug-2005]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 06-Sep-2005]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 90

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-280

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2004

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }	District Court of Vermont,
       v.	                       }	Unit No. 3, Essex Circuit
                                       }	
  Lynda L. Franklin	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 46-4-02 ExCr

                                                Trial Judge: M. Kathleen Manley

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant, Lynda Franklin, was convicted of perjury pursuant
  to 13 V.S.A. § 2901 based on her testimony given during a prior prosecution
  for driving while intoxicated (DWI), that she had not operated a vehicle
  while she was intoxicated.  Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

       ¶  2.  Defendant and Garth Ely were living together when police
  responded to Ely's telephone call informing police that defendant was drunk
  and had driven a vehicle while intoxicated.  That day, Ely gave a statement
  to the police that defendant drove a truck to her parent's house.  Three
  criminal proceedings arose out of this one incident.  First, the State
  charged defendant with DWI.  During the DWI trial, the State asked
  defendant if she had operated the vehicle on that day.  She answered, "No I
  did not. I didn't operate it."  Contrary to statements he gave earlier, Ely
  testified during defendant's DWI trial that defendant had not operated the
  vehicle.  

       ¶  3.  Second, Ely was charged with and convicted of perjury based
  on the statement he made during defendant's DWI trial.  This charge
  resulted from an investigation of a domestic assault complaint made by
  defendant against Ely.  During the investigation, a police officer
  videotaped Ely making a statement concerning the facts surrounding the DWI
  charge against defendant.  Ely's statement conflicted with his testimony at
  defendant's DWI trial, and resulted in his conviction.

       ¶  4.  Third, the State charged defendant with perjury, and she was
  convicted.  Defendant appeals her perjury conviction, which was based on
  her testimony during the DWI prosecution where she denied operating a
  vehicle.

       ¶  5.  Defendant argues on appeal that: (1) it was plain error to
  admit Ely's in-court testimony, Ely's videotaped statement, and Ely's
  perjury conviction; (2) without Ely's testimony, insufficient evidence
  existed to convict defendant of perjury; and (3) the court committed
  reversible error when it did not rule on defendant's motion for judgment of
  acquittal at the close of the State's case.
   
       ¶  6.  At trial, defendant failed to object to the admission of
  Ely's testimony.  As a result,  we review for plain error only.  Plain
  error occurs when there is glaring error so grave that it strikes at the
  very heart of defendant's constitutional rights or it affects the fair
  administration of justice.  State v. Oscarson, 2004 VT 4, ¶ 27, 176 Vt.
  176,