Case Title: State v. Baker

Citation: 2007 VT 84

Docket Number: 2006-358

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Baker (2006-358)
    
2007 VT 84

[Filed 24-Aug-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 84

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-358

                               MAY TERM, 2007


  State of Vermont                   }           APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
       v.                            }           District Court of Vermont,
                                     }           Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
  Donald Baker                       }
                                     }           DOCKET NO. 653-12-04 OsCr

                                                 Trial Judge:  A. Gregory 
                                                               Rainville

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.   The State appeals the decision of the trial court to
  disqualify the prosecuting attorney and the entire Orleans County State's
  Attorney's Office (OCSA) based on the appearance of a conflict of interest. 
  While in private practice, before becoming Deputy State's Attorney for
  Orleans County, Joseph Malgeri represented a co-defendant and state's
  witness in defendant's case.  The issue in this appeal is whether the
  deputy state's attorney was properly disqualified, under
  conflict-of-interest rules, because of the earlier representation.  We find
  he was not and reverse.

       ¶  2.  On December 2, 2004, the Ammex duty-free store in Derby Line,
  Vermont was robbed.  On December 9, 2004, following an investigation of the
  crime, the State charged defendant with kidnaping and grand larceny in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2402(a)(1)(E) and 13 V.S.A. § 2501 respectively. 
  More than a year later, the State charged a co-defendant with aiding in the
  commission of a felony and perjury in relation to that same robbery.  The
  perjury charge resulted from false statements the co-defendant allegedly
  made during a deposition taken in the defendant's case.  The state
  dismissed the perjury charge as part of a plea agreement resolving all
  pending charges against the co-defendant.  The co-defendant became a chief
  witness in the prosecution of defendant. 

       ¶  3.  Defense counsel learned on July 20, 2006 that Joseph Malgeri,
  the deputy state's attorney acting as lead prosecutor in this case, had
  previously represented the co-defendant on DUI and
  false-information-to-a-police-officer (FIPO) charges in 1995.  Deputy
  State's Attorney Malgeri had no recollection of this prior representation
  and therefore did not disclose it. 
   
       ¶  4.  Defendant subsequently filed a motion to disqualify Deputy
  State's Attorney Malgeri and the entire OCSA as prosecutors in his case,
  and the State opposed that motion.  The co-defendant entered a waiver of
  any conflict of interest related to his prior representation by attorney
  Malgeri on August 8, 2006.  The Orleans District Court ruled that the
  appearance of a conflict of interest was sufficient to warrant
  disqualification of Deputy State's Attorney Malgeri and, by extension, the
  whole OCSA office. 

       ¶  5.  There is scarce Vermont case law dealing with a conflict of
  interest resulting from a prior representation of a co-defendant by the
  prosecuting attorney against a current defendant.  Thus, the trial court
  examined case law from other jurisdictions in reaching its decision.  The
  court acknowledged that most states find disqualification is not
  "automatic" in similar circumstances.  It reasoned, though, that "given the
  need to protect against the appearance of impropriety and the risk of
  prejudice attendant on abuse of confidence, however slight," Deputy State's
  Attorney Malgeri should be disqualified.  (quoting People v. Tessitore, 577 N.Y.S.2d 680, 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991).  The court then imputed the
  disqualification to the entire OCSA because various attorneys in the office
  had appeared in court during the course of the prosecution of both
  defendant's and the co-defendant's cases, which lasted more than six
  months. 

       ¶  6.  "A motion to disqualify counsel is a matter that rests within
  the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be
  disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion."  Stowell v. Bennett,
  169 Vt. 630, 631,