Case Title: State v. Wiley

Citation: 2007 VT 13

Docket Number: 2005-435

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-02-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Wiley (2005-435)

2007 VT 13

[Filed 02-Feb-2007]


       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.


                                 2007 VT 13

                                No. 2005-435


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

  Timothy Wiley                                  September Term, 2006


  John P. Wesley, J.


  Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Tracy Kelly Shriver,
    Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  BURGESS, J.   Defendant Timothy Wiley appeals from his
  convictions for aggravated sexual assault, lewd and lascivious conduct with
  a child, and obstruction of justice.  Defendant asserts that (1) his
  convictions for both aggravated sexual assault and lewd and lascivious
  conduct violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and (2) the evidence was
  insufficient to sustain any of the convictions.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  On May 22, 2004, A.H. reported to her father, and then to
  police, that her mother's boyfriend had forcible sex with her on numerous
  occasions in the past several months.  A.H was thirteen at the time.  The
  next day, police collected blankets and sheets from A.H.'s bed.  Sperm and
  female epithelial cells were later collected from a seminal fluid stain
  found on the bedding.  DNA from those cells was compared to DNA samples
  from A.H. and defendant, and the two were found to be likely sources of the
  cells.  The State filed charges against defendant for aggravated sexual
  assault and lewd and lascivious conduct in June 2004.

       ¶  3.  Defendant was held for lack of bail pending trial.  While
  incarcerated, defendant had a series of telephone conversations with A.H.'s
  mother, a developmentally impaired woman.  Recordings of three of the
  conversations were introduced by the State at trial.  In the first
  conversation, from July 18, 2004, the mother indicated that she was afraid
  to lose custody of A.H.  Defendant suggested that the mother talk to A.H.
  and tell A.H. that she's lying.  In the second conversation, recorded two
  days later on July 20, 2004, defendant asked the mother to talk to A.H. and
  persuade her to drop the charges.  Otherwise, defendant warned, he would
  testify at trial and reveal information that would cause the state to take
  A.H. away from her.  The mother responded by saying: "Yeah.  Oh, my God. 
  It's not good."  In the third conversation, recorded February 25, 2005,
  defendant told the mother: "I need your help . . . [Y]ou have to try to
  remember . . . me having sex in [A.H.]'s room and then climbing out the
  window."  After furthering prompting by defendant, the mother twice denied
  remembering having sex with defendant in A.H.'s room.  Defendant replied,
  "that right there isn't going to help," and told the mother that if she was
  asked in court about the sexual encounter she should say that she
  remembered it.  Based on these recordings, the State charged defendant with
  two counts of obstructing justice for threatening the mother with losing
  custody of A.H. and for suggesting that she lie under oath about
  remembering a sexual encounter with defendant on A.H.'s bed.  After the
  information was amended to add these charges, defendant waived his right to
  a jury and was tried by the court. 
   
       ¶  4.  A.H. testified to forced vaginal intercourse with one "Tim
  Wiley" on more than five occasions in the months preceding her report to
  police.  A.H. also described one instance when Tim Wiley forced A.H. to
  perform oral sex.  According to A.H., these acts occurred while Tim Wiley
  was living with her and her mother.  A.H. said that she thought of Tim
  Wiley as her "stepdad" and as her mother's "true boyfriend."  However, A.H.
  was not asked to identify the defendant sitting in the courtroom as the
  perpetrator of the assaults or as the Tim Wiley she was referring to.

       ¶  5.  The mother, in her testimony, described living in a series of
  apartments with A.H. and defendant.  The mother made a courtroom
  identification of defendant as the Tim Wiley with whom she and A.H. had
  lived.  The mother also identified the voices from the recorded telephone
  conversations as those of herself and defendant.  The mother stated that
  she never felt threatened by anything defendant said during those
  conversations and testified to remembering a sexual encounter with
  defendant on A.H.'s bed.  The mother maintained that she remembered the
  encounter without assistance from anyone. 

       ¶  6.  At the close of evidence, and again post trial, defendant moved
  for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure
  29.  Defendant's motions for acquittal on the sexual assault and lewd and
  lascivious conduct charges were premised on the State's failure to have
  A.H. identify the defendant seated in the courtroom as the Tim Wiley who
  engaged in those sexual acts.  In his motions for acquittal on the
  obstruction of justice charges, defendant contended that the State failed
  to prove that the mother was actually made afraid by defendant's threats
  and that the State failed to prove that her testimony about a sexual
  encounter with defendant on A.H.'s bed was not truthful.  The trial court
  denied defendant's motions.  Defendant's appeal challenges these rulings,
  and raises the issue of whether, under the facts presented, conviction for
  both aggravated sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct violated the
  Double Jeopardy Clause.
   

                             I.  Double Jeopardy

       ¶  7.  Defendant raises for the first time on appeal that convictions
  for both aggravated sexual assault and lewd and lascivious conduct are a
  violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.  A
  constitutional issue not raised at trial is reviewed only for plain error. 
  State v. Judkins, 161 Vt. 593, 594, 641 A.2d 350, 351 (1993) (mem.).  Plain
  error must be both obvious and prejudicial, id., and neither is present
  here.

       ¶  8.  The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person may "be
  subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." 
  U.S. Const. amend. V.  The Clause prohibits second or subsequent
  prosecutions for the same offense as well as multiple impositions of
  punishment for an offense.  State v. Grega, 168 Vt. 363, 382,