Case Title: State v. Trombley

Citation: 174 Vt. 459, 807 A.2d 400

Docket Number: 2001-128

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Trombley (2001-128); 174 Vt. 459; 807 A.2d 400

[Filed 02-Jul-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-128

                              MARCH TERM, 2002


  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit
  Matthew S. Trombley	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 216-2-00 Frcr

                                                Trial Judge:  Dean Pineles

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Defendant Matthew Trombley appeals his aggravated assault conviction,
  claiming several errors in the court's jury instructions.  Defendant
  contends that (1) the court improperly instructed the jury to consider
  whether defendant acted either "purposely" or "knowingly" when defendant
  was charged with only "purposely" inflicting serious bodily harm, (2) the
  court failed to instruct the jury that it should consider evidence of
  defendant's fear and emotions in deciding whether defendant acted
  purposely, and (3) the court's instructions on self-defense were so
  misleading that the jury rejected defendant's claim of self-defense.  We
  affirm.	

       The incident occurred the evening of  February 18, 2000, when George
  Demarais and Matthew Trombley, the defendant, were involved in a fight. 
  Various details of the fight are in dispute.

       The two men were at a bar in St. Albans.  Both had been drinking. 
  Demarais testified that he had been sitting at the bar with some friends
  when defendant, whom he did not know, approached him from behind, put him
  in a headlock, pushed him forward, and punched him several times in the
  face.  Bystanders pulled defendant off Demarais, and shortly thereafter,
  Demarais left the bar.  Defendant testified that he had approached Demarias
  at the bar because Demarais had been staring at him and he wanted to find
  out why. He contends a brief struggle then ensued.  According to defendant,
  after Demarais left the bar, defendant noticed that his hand had been cut
  and he decided to go after Demarais to "talk to him" about what Demarais
  had done.
   
       The testimony differs as to what happened outside of the bar on Main
  Street once defendant and Demarais had left the bar.  According to
  Demarais, who was walking away from the bar,  defendant grabbed him from
  behind and punched him at least twelve times before Demarais fell to the
  ground and started to lose consciousness.  Demarais testified that in an
  effort to defend himself, he pulled out a small knife and blindly slashed
  at defendant over his shoulder.  After delivering a few more punches,
  defendant stopped punching Demarais.  According to defendant, he saw
  Demarais

 

  walking down the street, hollered at him to stop, ran towards him, and
  tackled him.  They fell to the ground.  After some struggle, defendant felt
  a pain in his side and became scared and angry.  He testified he repeatedly
  punched Demarais in an effort to get Demarais to stop stabbing him.

       Both individuals suffered injuries.  Demarais suffered a bruised face. 
  His eyes were swollen shut and he experienced a partial loss of vision. 
  One tooth had been knocked out, and another was hanging by a thread. 
  Defendant suffered multiple stab wounds to his face, the back of his scalp,
  his neck, hand and chest.  The stab wounds were all superficial.

       Defendant was charged with aggravated assault under 13 V.S.A. §
  1024(a)(1).  The charge read:  "[defendant] was then and there a person who
  purposely caused serious bodily injury to another, to wit: George Demarais,
  by knocking some teeth out by repeatedly punching Mr. Demarais in violation
  of 13 V.S.A. § 1024(a)(1)."  The jury convicted defendant of aggravated
  assault.  Defendant appeals the jury verdict of guilty, claiming that the
  court's instructions to the jury were erroneous.  Defendant properly
  preserved his objections to all of the pertinent jury instructions.

       "In reviewing jury instructions, the relevant inquiry is whether the
  instructions as a whole were misleading or inadequate to aid the jury's
  deliberations."  State v. Shabazz, 169 Vt. 448, 450,