Case Title: State v. Grenier

Citation: 

Docket Number: 90-313

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-10-01T00:00:00Z

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. 90-313


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
 John F. Grenier                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                              October Term, 1991


 Matthew I. Katz, J.

 William Sorrell, Chittenden County State's Attorney, Burlington, and Pamela
  Hall Johnson, State's Attorneys and Sheriffs Department, Montpelier, for
  plaintiff-appellee

 Kenneth Schatz, Acting Defender General, and William Nelson, Appellate
   Attorney, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.



      Gibson, J.  Defendant John Grenier appeals his conviction for lewd and
 lascivious conduct, 13 V.S.A. { 2601.  He argues that the trial court erred
 (1) in failing to instruct the jury that lewd and lascivious conduct is a
 specific-intent crime, (2) in instructing the jury on lewd and lascivious
 conduct as a lesser-included offense of sexual assault, (3) in allowing
 testimony that should have been excluded under V.R.E. 404(b), and (4) in
 failing to strike part of the presentence report after defendant objected to
 its accuracy under V.R.Cr.P. 32(c)(4).  We affirm the conviction, but agree
 with defendant on his fourth claim of error.  We therefore vacate the
 sentence and remand the case for resentencing.
      Defendant was originally charged with two counts of sexual assault, 13
 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(1), for allegedly inserting his finger into the vaginas of
 two women.  Defendant went to the home of one of the women late one night
 after he had been drinking heavily.  She was asleep downstairs and, upon
 being awakened, let defendant in, believing him to be the boyfriend of her
 babysitter, who was in bed upstairs.  Defendant went upstairs, where he
 restrained the babysitter and fondled her, conduct that he later admitted
 was wrongful.  He then returned downstairs, where he fondled the other
 woman, with whom he had had prior sexual relations.  After this second
 alleged sexual assault, he and the second woman engaged in consensual sexual
 intercourse.  The jury found defendant guilty of one count of lewd and
 lascivious conduct for his acts against the woman upstairs.
                                     I.
      Defendant first argues that the court erred in failing to instruct the
 jury that a conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct requires a finding
 that defendant acted with specific intent to outrage the feelings of the
 alleged victim, i.e., the intention to achieve a precise harm or result.
 See State v. Audette, 149 Vt. 218, 220,