Case Title: State v. Gibney

Citation: 175 Vt. 180, 2003 VT 26, 825 A.2d 32

Docket Number: 1999-081

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Gibney (1999-081); 175 Vt. 180; 825 A.2d 32

2003 VT 26

[Filed 28-Mar-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 26

                                No. 1999-081

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit

  Shawn K. Gibney	                         November Term, 2001

  Ronald F. Kilburn, J.

  Diane C. Wheeler, Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Robert Appel, Defender General, Anna Saxman, Deputy Defender General, and
    Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse (FN1), Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Defendant appeals from his conviction by jury on
  one count of first-degree murder, for which he received a sentence of fifty
  years to life.  Defendant makes four claims on appeal: (1) the jury's
  guilty verdict was not supported by the evidence; (2) he was improperly
  prohibited from offering exculpatory evidence that other persons had the
  motive to kill the victim; (3) the court erred in failing to dismiss the
  case, or to impose an alternate sanction, because of the prosecution's
  destruction of possibly exculpatory notes taken by various police officers
  during their investigation; and (4) the court erred in concluding that
  defendant's sentence should be aggravated because the crime had multiple
  victims.  We affirm the conviction, but reverse the sentencing decision and
  remand for resentencing.

       ¶  2.  Defendant's first claim on appeal is that the guilty verdict
  is not supported by the evidence and thus the trial court erred in denying
  his motion for a judgment of acquittal.  Because defendant was charged with
  first-degree murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable
  doubt that defendant killed the victim, Sam Gendron, that he intended to do
  so, and that he did so deliberately and with premeditation.  State v.
  Couture, 169 Vt. 222, 226,