Case Title: State v. White

Citation: 172 Vt. 493, 782 A.2d 1187

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. White (2000-211); 172 Vt. 493; 782 A.2d 1187

[Filed 31-Aug-2001]

       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. 2000-211

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Rutland Circuit

Robert L. White	                                 May Term, 2001 

Theresa S. DiMauro, J.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney 
  General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles S. Martin of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

       SKOGLUND, J.   Defendant Robert White appeals his conviction for
  second degree murder  following a jury trial in Rutland District Court, and
  the subsequent imposition of a sentence of life in  prison without parole. 
  Defendant claims that the conviction and sentence should be vacated, and
  the  case remanded for a new trial, on the grounds that (1) the evidence
  presented does not support a  finding of defendant's guilt beyond a
  reasonable doubt; (2) the failure of the police to photograph and  preserve
  certain evidence required either dismissal of the charge against him or
  suppression of the  evidence in question; (3) the court erred in allowing
  testimony regarding defendant's marital  difficulties and his earlier
  discharge from employment at the business where the murder took place; 

 

  and (4) the trial court's imposition of the sentence of life without
  parole, based upon aggravating  circumstances, was unjustified and
  therefore error.  We perceive no error in regard to defendant's  arguments,
  so we affirm the conviction and sentence.

       On April 18, 1998, shortly before 11:00 p.m., Jane Desmarais arrived
  at the Econo Lodge  Motel in Rutland to begin her overnight shift as the
  front desk clerk.   Around 1:00 a.m., a couple  checked into the motel,
  where they observed Desmarais speaking with a man in the motel lobby.   The
  man addressed the couple, acting as if he was participating in the check-in
  process.  Defendant  had been employed as a night clerk at the motel the
  previous fall and was familiar with the nighttime  check-in procedures and
  where cash was kept on the premises.    

       At 2:15 a.m., a long-distance telephone call was made to the front
  desk of the motel by a  person trying to get in touch with one of the
  motel's customers.  When no one answered, the person  tried again four or
  five times within the following half-hour, but was unable to reach anyone
  at the  front desk.  At 6:00 a.m., Desmarais' mother telephoned the motel,
  and when no one answered, went  to the motel to check on her daughter. 
  When she arrived, the entrance was locked, but inside all the  lights and
  the television were on.  After no one responded to her knocking on the door
  and a window,  she contacted the owner of the motel, Patrick Abatiell, Sr. 
  Abatiell then drove to the motel,  unlocked the door, and entered with
  Desmarais' mother.  They discovered Desmarais deceased, her  body lying on
  the floor of the lobby in a location not visible from the front door. 
  Blood spots on the  floor and the arrangement of the victim's clothes
  suggested that the body had been moved to that spot  from a more visible
  location.  The body had been disfigured by the application of chemical
  solvents,  including paint remover and commercial drain opener, and
  appeared to have been burned 

 

  as well.  An autopsy indicated that the cause of death had been asphyxia
  due to strangulation.  There  was over $400 in cash missing from the motel
  office area. 

       While processing the crime scene, the police took into evidence two
  advertising flyers, one  8« by 11 inches in size, and the other 8« by 5«
  inches.  The larger flyer had reddish-brown stains  on the back, unprinted
  side that appeared to be consistent with blood and that resembled a palm 
  print.  The smaller flyer had on it what appeared to be a fingerprint made
  in blood.  The flyers were  submitted to the state police forensic
  laboratory for identification of the reddish-brown stains as well  as to
  make an identification of the prints.  In the course of processing the
  larger flyer to identify the  palm print, the document was sprayed with
  ninhydrin, a chemical used to reveal more of the full  hand print on the
  flyer.  The ninhydrin treatment revealed latent fingerprints as well. 
  After  determining that the reddish-brown substance was indeed blood, a
  portion of the palm print was cut  out by the crime lab in order to
  preserve it for any future testing which might be necessary.  The palm 
  print and fingerprint impressions on both flyers were subsequently
  identified as matching those of  the defendant, and a sample of blood taken
  from the palm print was identified as that of the victim. 

       Prior to trial, defendant moved the court to exclude the evidence
  obtained from the larger  flyer, or to dismiss the charges, arguing the
  physical evidence had been destroyed by the forensic  laboratory's cutting
  of the flyer and chemical treatment.  During the trial, defendant filed a
  motion to  exclude the testimony of Patrick Abatiell, Jr., manager of the
  Econo Lodge, regarding the  circumstances surrounding defendant's
  termination from the motel.  Defendant also objected during  trial to the
  introduction of testimony regarding the marital difficulties he was
  experiencing at the  time of the murder.  The court denied the motions and
  the objection, and at the conclusion of the trial 

 

  the jury entered a verdict of guilty.  On April 27, 2000, after the
  sentencing hearing, the court issued  its findings and sentence.  

       Defendant first argues that the evidence presented was insufficient,
  as a matter of law, to  support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable
  doubt.  During the trial, defendant moved the court  once to dismiss for
  lack of a prima facie case, twice-at the conclusion of the prosecution's
  and the  defense's case-for acquittal, and once for acquittal
  notwithstanding the guilty verdict.  All of these  motions were denied.  

       We review all of these motions under the same standard-we must
  determine "whether,  taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the
  state and excluding modifying evidence, the  state has produced evidence
  fairly and reasonably tending to show the defendant guilty beyond a 
  reasonable doubt."  State v. Fanger, 164 Vt. 48, 51,