Case Title: State v. Gedutis

Citation: 163 Vt 591, 653 A.2d 761

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_GEDUTIS.93-216; 163 Vt 591; 653 A.2d 761

[Filed:  12-Oct-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 10-Nov-1994]
                        
                              ENTRY ORDER

                     SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-216

                           MARCH TERM, 1994


State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }             Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                  }
Alexander Gedutis                 }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 2033-6-92Cncr


               In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

Defendent Alexander Gedutis was placed on probation for the misdeameanor
conviction of unlawful mischief after damaging his wife's vehicle.  Six
months later, complainant reported to police that defendant had left
messages on her telephone answering machine, one threatening harm to her. 
As a result, a probation violation complaint was made alleging that
defendant had violated conditions of his probation. 

     Complainant testified at the probation hearing that the last message
defendant put on the answering machine was a threat to shoot her in the
head.  The State did not produce the inculpatory tape, explaining in
response to defendant's request that efforts to obtain it had been
"futile."  The State also did not produce a statement about the incident
made by complainant.  The court revoked defendant's probation because he
engaged in threatening and harassing behavior. 

     The defendant appeals revocation on two grounds.  First, he argues
that it was error to permit the complainant to testify about the alleged
incident because the State failed to provide the tape and complainant's
statement to defendant on request, as required by V.R.Cr.P. 16.  In the
alternative, he asserts that complainant's testimony about the tape
violates V.R.Cr.P 32.1 because the State never disclosed the tape to
defendant so that he could protect himself from a faulty characterization
of the evidence.  We affirm. 

     Defendant's reliance on V.R.Cr.P. 16 is misplaced.  In  State v.
Kasper, 152 Vt. 435, 440, 566 A.2d 982, 985 (1989), we held that "[b]ecause
a probation revocation proceeding is informal [and] `unhampered by the
procedure incident to a common law trial,'" Rule 32.1(a)(2), not Rule 

 

43, "sets forth the procedure for the revocation hearing."  Id. at 440, 566 A.2d  at 985 (alteration in original) (quoting Reporter's Notes, V.R.Cr.P.
32.1).  We likewise hold that Rule 16 does not apply to probation
revocation proceedings, and any discovery there is governed by Rule 32.1. 

     We decline, however, to address defendant's argument on appeal that
V.R.Cr.P. 32.1 required disclosure of the statement and the tape, because
this argument was never presented to the trial court, and therefore, was
not properly preserved.  See State v. Lettieri, 149 Vt. 340, 344,