Case Title: State v. Couture

Citation: 169 Vt. 222, 734 A.2d 524

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-05-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Couture (97-426); 169 Vt. 222; 734 A.2d 524

[Filed 07-May-1999]

       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. 97-426

State of Vermont	                          Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.		                                  District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Ronald G. Couture	                          January Term, 1999

Robert Grussing, III, J.

Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Christopher C.
  Moll, Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

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

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

       MORSE, J.  Defendant Ronald Couture appeals his second degree murder
  conviction after  a jury trial.  Defendant contends that his conviction
  should be reversed because the trial court  erred by: (1) denying his
  motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, (2) admitting 
  evidence of a drop of human blood on his boot in violation of the Fourth
  Amendment and V.R.E.  403, and (3) failing to describe the elements of
  murder and the lesser included offenses in the jury  instructions in the
  order he requested.  We affirm.

       Randy Barrows' body was discovered in the early morning hours of June
  23, 1993 lying  on a path near the Connecticut River in Brattleboro.  The
  police responded to the scene shortly  after 6:00 a.m.  There was a single
  bullet hole in Barrows' head.  The entry wound was just above  Barrows'
  left ear at the temple.  An autopsy indicated that the bullet had travelled
  horizontally  with a slight forward pitch from back to front.  Barrows was
  lying face up with his left arm  extended down and his right hand
  positioned around a brown bag.  The weapon was not at the 

   

  scene.  

       At trial, defendant claimed that Barrows committed suicide.  The State
  sought to prove  that defendant shot Barrows with evidence consisting of
  testimony from several of defendant's  friends and associates who had seen
  him on the night of the shooting.
  
       On June 22, 1993, defendant was temporarily staying at the Fletcher
  residence in  Brattleboro after he and his wife had had an argument. 
  Defendant, Barrows and another friend,  Harry Goddard, started drinking
  early that evening at Barrows' residence.  Large quantities of  beer were
  consumed during the evening.  The autopsy revealed that Barrows' blood
  alcohol  content at the time of his death was .326 percent.  On prior
  occasions when Barrows was  drinking, he had professed his desire to commit
  suicide, and he reiterated his wish that evening.  Defendant offered to
  sell Barrows a .22 caliber rifle to use for his suicide.  After drinking
  beer  and discussing the weapon, the three men left Barrows' residence and
  proceeded to Deborah  Wilkins' house to drink more beer.  Wilkins was
  acquainted with defendant and was a neighbor  of Barrows.  

       At around 8:30 p.m., one of the men called a cab from the Wilkins'
  house in order to  retrieve defendant's rifle from the Fletcher residence. 
  Wilkins testified that when the cab arrived,  Barrows did not want to go
  and that Goddard "pushed him into the cab."  The cab driver testified  that
  Barrows' companions were "harassing" him, "picking on him and slapping him
  in the back  of the head."  When they arrived at their destination, the
  three men went inside while the cab  driver waited outside.  Barrows
  eventually paid for the cab.  The cab driver testified that he "saw  the
  thinner man from the back seat grab the little guy by his neck and drag him
  out of the front  door of the house and tell[] him to pay [] for the ride."  

       While inside the house, defendant's friend, Scott Denyou, observed
  defendant retrieve the  rifle from a duffle bag.  Denyou had known both
  defendant and Barrows for many years.  Denyou  asked defendant what he was
  doing, and defendant replied that "he was going to shoot someone." 

       Goddard testified to the events that followed.  From defendant's
  temporary residence, the 

 
  
  three men walked to the Riverview Restaurant for Barrows' last meal. 
  Defendant carried the rifle  wrapped in a garbage bag, and Barrows carried
  a bag full of beer.  The restaurant was closed, and  the men continued
  toward the river where Barrows eventually laid down on the ground with the 
  beer by his side and said, "this will do."  Defendant unwrapped the rifle
  and handed it to  Barrows, who placed it beside him.  Goddard then took a
  beer with him and walked back up the  path alone toward the restaurant. 
  Goddard testified that, moments after he left the scene at the  river, he
  sat on the hood of a car, and "[s]ome sort of time elapsed and I heard a
  pop."  Goddard  then started to walk back down the path where he met
  defendant approaching with the rifle in  hand.  Defendant told Goddard
  "Randy is gone."  They wrapped the rifle in the garbage bag and  the two
  men left the area.  Defendant and Goddard walked from the river to the
  house of another  friend nearby, William Sabolevski, where they drank more
  beer.  Goddard informed Sabolevski  that Barrows was "gone" and that "you
  don't have to worry about Randy anymore."  Defendant  admitted to
  Sabolevski when they arrived that "He [Barrows] wanted to die and I popped
  him.  I did it."

       Goddard emptied the remaining bullets from the rifle and wrapped them
  in a paper towel,  which he later threw down a storm drain after he and
  defendant left the Sabolevski residence.   When defendant and Goddard
  departed, they took a fishing pole so that anyone who saw them  arrive with
  the rifle would see them with a similar package on the way out.  The next
  morning,  Sabolevski, standing on his back porch, saw Barrows' body lying
  on the path.  He found the rifle  in the hallway outside of his front door. 
  Sabolevski then dismantled the rifle, packed the pieces  in a box with some
  old clothes, and put it in a dumpster.

       The police questioned Sabolevski, who informed them that Goddard and
  defendant had  stopped at his house the night before, and that the rifle
  was in the dumpster.  An officer picked  defendant up on June 23, and he
  was questioned by detectives at the police department.  No arrest  was made
  at that time.   After further questioning on June 25, defendant was
  arrested and charged  with first degree murder.  

 

       Another officer observed "drag marks" on the path leading to Barrows'
  body.  The State  suggested that Barrows was dragged to the place where he
  was shot.  Goddard testified that  Barrows had walked willingly down the
  path.  In addition, the State offered fingerprint evidence  taken from the
  rifle.  Tests revealed only defendant's fingerprints, but the jury heard
  testimony  regarding the handling of the weapon, including Sabolevski's
  testimony that he had wiped the gun  off before placing it in the dumpster. 
  The State also introduced evidence of blood taken from  defendant's
  clothing.  
  
       Defendant did not testify at trial, but the jury saw portions of a
  videotaped interview  conducted prior to his arrest.  The jury found
  defendant guilty of second degree murder.  

                                     I.

       After the State's case and at the close of all the evidence, defendant
  moved for judgment  of acquittal under V.R.Cr.P. 29 based on insufficiency
  of the evidence.  The trial court denied  these motions, and also denied a
  defense motion for a new trial under V.R.Cr.P. 33.  Defendant  claims that
  the trial court erred by denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and
  for a new  trial.   Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient
  to support the conviction and that  the verdict was against the weight of
  the evidence.  He claims that the State's evidence admitted  of only one
  logical conclusion: Barrows committed suicide.  

       Our standard for reviewing a denial of a V.R.Cr.P. 29 motion for
  judgment of acquittal  gauges whether "'the evidence, when viewed in the
  light most favorable to the State and excluding  any modifying evidence,
  fairly and reasonably tends to convince a reasonable trier of fact that the 
  defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'"  State v. Delisle, 162 Vt.
  293, 307,