Case Title: State v. Webster

Citation: 165 Vt 54, 675 A.2d 1330

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Webster  (94-106); 165 Vt 54; 675 A.2d 1330

[Opinion Filed 15-Mar-1996]

       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. 94-106


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit

Roger Webster                                     January Term, 1996


Walter M. Morris, Jr., J.

       Robert L. Sand, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       David J. Williams of Sleigh & Williams, St. Johnsbury, and Thomas P.
  Donnellan of Moore & Donnellan, Derby, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       JOHNSON, J.   Defendant appeals multiple assault convictions, arguing
  that the trial court erred by (1) excluding for substantive purposes
  certain evidence regarding an alleged affair between the complaining
  witness, defendant's wife, and the chief investigating officer, and (2)
  denying a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, namely
  an answering machine tape purporting to show defendant's wife threatening
  the officer.  We affirm.

                                I.

       Defendant was convicted of seven counts of simple assault.  Five of
  the assaults were against his wife, one was against his older daughter,
  then eleven, and one was against his younger daughter, then eight.(FN1)
  Defendant's wife testified that she and her children had endured

 

  several years of physical and emotional abuse while living with defendant. 
  The two children also testified, describing the abuse they suffered, and
  corroborating some of the abuse directed at their mother.  The State also
  presented the testimony of several corroborating witnesses.  One witness
  testified that she had observed bruising on defendant's wife.  Another
  witness testified that he had counseled defendant's wife about the abuse. 
  The corroborating witnesses also established that defendant's wife had
  revealed the abuse and sought relief as early as February 1990, more than
  two years before the local sheriff, who was the chief investigating
  officer, became involved in the case.

       On appeal, defendant argues that his rights to confront witnesses and
  present a defense were violated because the trial court refused to permit
  defendant to pursue his theory of the case. Defendant sought to undermine
  the credibility of the complaining witness, defendant's wife, by presenting
  evidence regarding alleged romantic involvement between defendant's wife
  and the sheriff.  Although the court permitted much of the relevant
  testimony for impeachment purposes, the court instructed the jury that they
  were not to determine whether the affair took place, but only to consider
  the evidence in deciding whether or not they believed defendant's wife and
  the other witnesses.

       The trial court excluded the evidence under V.R.E. 403, which permits
  the exclusion of relevant evidence where the probative value of the
  evidence "is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
  confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury."  The trial court has
  discretion to balance these factors, and we will not disturb the trial
  court's ruling absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion.  State v.
  Cartee, 161 Vt. 73, 75,