Case Title: State v. Benoit

Citation: 

Docket Number: 90-420

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-11-01T00:00:00Z

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. 90-420


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 Lansing Benoit                               November Term, 1991


 Matthew I. Katz, J.

 William Sorrell, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall
   Johnson, Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, Kerry B. DeWolfe and William Nelson,
   Appellate Attorneys, and Marie Buckley, Law Clerk (On the Brief),
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
           Specially Assigned


      ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals his conviction for lewd and lascivious
 behavior in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2601.  He claims that (1) there was no
 evidence that his actions were "open," as required by { 2601, (2) the state
 police prejudiced him by destroying notes of witness interviews, and (3) the
 trial court improperly instructed the jury to "seek the truth."  We affirm.
      Testimony at trial showed that two girls, B.H., age 11, and D.P., age
 13, were swimming at a swimming hole near their homes while defendant sunned
 himself nearby.  The girls went for a ride in defendant's van and drank
 alcoholic beverages provided by defendant.  Both girls subsequently fell
 asleep in the van.  B.H. was fully clothed when she fell asleep.  D.P.
 testified that when she awoke B.H. was naked and asleep.  She further
 testified that defendant was disrobed, lying directly above B.H. doing
 "push-ups."  When defendant stood, she saw his penis.  B.H. remembered
 nothing except waking up naked.
      The State originally charged defendant with sexual assault.  Prior to
 trial, the State filed a second information alleging lewd and lascivious
 conduct in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2601.  The second information charged
 defendant with "removing all of B.H.'s clothing."  The two charges were
 joined for trial.  During discovery, the defense learned that a state police
 detective had destroyed handwritten notes he made during initial interviews
 with B.H. and D.P.  Prior to destroying the notes, the officer incorporated
 them into a written report.  The defendant moved to exclude the testimony of
 the victim, the witness and the officer, arguing that the State prejudiced
 him by failing to preserve discoverable material.  The trial court denied
 the motion.  Defendant also moved for judgment of acquittal asserting that
 the State failed to prove that his conduct was "open," as required by 13
 V.S.A. 2601.  The trial court also denied that motion.  During jury
 instructions, the trial judge twice referred to a jury's duty to "seek the
 truth."  The defendant argued that this language denied him a fair trial by
 improperly stating the State's burden of proof.
                                     I.
      Defendant argues that because the information charged defendant with
 violating 13 V.S.A. { 2601 "by removing all of B.H.'s clothing," his
 conviction cannot be sustained.  He argues that the State introduced no
 evidence that anyone witnessed the undressing of B.H. and that an
 unwitnessed act does not violate the statute, which requires "open" lewd and
 lascivious behavior.
      Section { 2601 prohibits "open and gross lewdness and lascivious
 behavior."  The term "open" means "undisguised, not concealed" and requires
 no more than one witness.  State v. Millard, 18 Vt. 574, 578 (1846).
      Defendant would have us confine our analysis to those few moments
 during which he removed B.H.'s clothing.  This we are unwilling to do.  The
 necessary consequence of the removal of B.H.'s clothing was the exposure of
 her naked body.  Defendant made no attempt to shield the result of the
 undressing from D.P., who witnessed B.H.'s naked body upon awakening.
 Although the State could have charged defendant with exposing his genitals
 to D.P., the behavior charged -- the removal of B.H.'s clothing -- was
 sufficiently open to support the conviction.  Given the evidence that D.P.
 observed B.H.'s naked body, the trial court properly denied defendant's
 motion for judgment of acquittal.
                                     II.
      Defendant next argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion
 to exclude the testimony of B.H., D.P., and the state police detective who
 initially interviewed them.  Defendant claims that the detective's failure
 to preserve handwritten notes of his initial interviews with B.H. and D.P.
 deprived defendant of his due process right to a fair trial.  We disagree.
      The trial court applied the balancing test set forth in State v.
 Bailey, 144 Vt. 86, 95,