Case Title: State v. Provost

Citation: 179 Vt. 337, 2005 VT 134, 896 A.2d 55

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Provost (2004-160); 179 Vt. 337; 896 A.2d 55

2005 VT 134

[Filed 23-Dec-2005]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 06-Feb-2006]


       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.


                                 2005 VT 134

                                No. 2004-160


  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 3, Lamoille Circuit

  Douglas Provost	                         September Term, 2005 


  Edward J. Cashman, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
    General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

                   
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.  Defendant Douglas Provost appeals his conviction
  on four counts of first-degree murder and his sentence of four consecutive
  terms of life without parole.  Defendant argues that the trial court erred
  by (1) failing to suppress defendant's statement to the police pursuant to
  the Public Defender Act; (2) permitting the State's medical expert to
  testify regarding matters outside the scope of the expert's report; and (3)
  enhancing his sentence to life without parole based on constitutionally
  impermissible factors.  We affirm defendant's conviction, but we vacate his
  sentence.  Defendant's sentence will be four terms of imprisonment for life
  with minimum terms of thirty-five years, to be served consecutively.

       ¶  2.  On Friday night, July 13, 2001, defendant shot and killed four
  people inside a house in Belvidere, Vermont.  Mitchell Bishop, his wife,
  Melissa Bishop, and their two daughters, Angel and Jessica Bishop, lived in
  the house, along with Jessica's fiancé, George Weatherwax, and Angel's
  boyfriend, Christopher Bocash.  Deric Davis, a local college student, and
  his girlfriend, Lauren Ursitti, lived in an apartment on the same property. 
  At the time of the shooting, defendant, Mitchell Bishop, Melissa Bishop,
  and Deric Davis were sitting in the living room.  Defendant was attempting
  to sell his handgun to Mitchell Bishop in exchange for cash and a bag of
  marijuana.  When Mitchell Bishop refused defendant's offer, and everyone
  but defendant began to leave the room, defendant suddenly pointed his gun
  at the chest of Deric Davis and shot him at close range.  Defendant then
  shot Mitchell Bishop.  Melissa Bishop ran out the door.  Jessica Bishop and
  George Weatherwax, who had been upstairs, came downstairs in response to
  the gunshots, and defendant shot them both.  Defendant drove away in his
  car as Melissa Bishop arrived at a neighbor's house and called the police. 
  Christopher Bocash heard the shootings and described them to the police
  when they arrived.  Both Lauren Ursitti and Angel Bishop slept through the
  shootings.
   
       ¶  3.  Melissa Bishop described defendant's vehicle, which she had
  seen driving away from the scene on Route 109.  A state police officer
  stopped defendant's vehicle on Route 109 and recorded his conversation with
  defendant, who denied any involvement with the shootings.  The officer
  arrived at the Bishop home and showed the videotape to Melissa Bishop, who
  confirmed that defendant was the shooter.  Police officers then went to
  defendant's home and observed it until the next morning, Saturday, July 14. 
  When defendant's mother came outside, the officers asked her to ask
  defendant to step outside.  When he did, the officers identified themselves
  and asked him to assist with an investigation, which he agreed to do.  The
  officers then took defendant to the state police barracks in St. Albans.

       ¶  4.  After arriving at the barracks, defendant was advised of his
  Miranda rights, which he waived in writing.  Between 8:30 a.m. and noon,
  the officers questioned defendant about the shootings.  Defendant denied
  involvement with the shootings, then stopped answering the officers'
  questions.  After continuing to ask defendant about the shootings without
  response for an extensive period, one of the officers stated that defendant
  appeared not to want to talk to them anymore, at which point defendant
  nodded.  The officers ceased questioning defendant and placed him under
  arrest, whereupon defendant was taken to the correctional center in St.
  Albans.  Later in the afternoon on the same day, officers approached
  defendant and asked if he had anything further to say, and defendant
  replied that he did not.  Because it was a Saturday, the police also
  contacted Judge Burgess so that he could set bail by telephone pursuant to
  Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(b). (FN1) Judge Burgess ordered
  defendant held without bail pending arraignment on Monday, July 16.
                                                     
       ¶  5.  On Sunday, July 15, the day following defendant's arrest, the
  officers returned to the correctional center and asked to speak with
  defendant again.  Defendant agreed to speak with the officers and signed a
  second waiver of his Miranda rights. (FN2)  During this interview,
  defendant admitted shooting all four victims.  Defendant claimed that his
  gun fired accidentally and hit Deric Davis, and that he shot Mitchell
  Bishop in self-defense.  Defendant said that he shot Jessica Bishop and
  George Weatherwax because he thought Deric Davis and Mitchell Bishop were
  still coming after him as he ran for the door.  Prior to trial, defendant
  moved to suppress this statement, asserting violations of his rights under
  Miranda and the Public Defender Act.  The trial court denied the motion,
  and the statement was admitted at trial.  Defendant's eight-day jury trial
  included the statement and eyewitness testimony, as well as expert
  testimony as to whether the gun could have fired accidentally and whether
  the positioning of the victims' bodies was consistent with defendant's
  statement.  The jury convicted defendant on four counts of murder in the
  first degree, and the trial court sentenced him to four consecutive terms
  of life without parole.
                                              
                                     I.

       ¶  6.  Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in failing
  to suppress, pursuant to Vermont's Public Defender Act, the statement he
  gave on Sunday, July 15, the day after his arrest.  Defendant argues that
  (1) the officers who detained and questioned him failed to contact a public
  defender on his behalf; and (2) Judge Burgess failed to inform defendant of
  his rights under the Act when he denied bail by telephone.  We review de
  novo the trial court's conclusions of law on motions to suppress.  State v.
  Rheaume, 2004 VT 35, ¶ 8, 176 Vt. 413,