Case Title: State v. Wool

Citation: 162 Vt. 342, 648 A.2d 655

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_WOOL.93-023; 162 Vt. 342; 648 A.2d 655

[Opinion Filed July 8, 1994]


 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. 93-023


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 Kirk Wool                                    March Term, 1994


 Linda Levitt, J.  (motion for investigator & expert witness)

 Ronald F. Kilburn, J.  (trial & post-trial motions)

 Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
   Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

 Dori Jones, Burlington, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant Kirk Wool appeals his conviction on two counts
 of aggravated sexual assault, 13 V.S.A. {{ 3252(a)(1), 3253(a)(3), following
 a jury trial.  We affirm.
      At trial, the victim testified as follows.  A few minutes past midnight
 on January 18, 1992, she was walking the short distance home from a
 friend's house in downtown Burlington.  Defendant stopped his car and
 offered her a ride.  The victim did not know defendant, but she accepted the
 ride because it was snowing and she was carrying a table that a friend had
 lent her to furnish her new apartment.  Defendant drove toward the victim's
 house, but when they approached her residence he did not stop.  Instead, he

 

 grabbed the victim in a head-lock and drove to his house several blocks
 away.  Rather than risk harm by resisting defendant, the victim submitted to
 his control.  When they arrived at his house, defendant held the victim's
 arms behind her back and ushered her inside.
      The victim testified that defendant brought her upstairs to his
 bedroom, locked the door behind them, and ordered her to remove her clothes.
 He prepared to inject himself with cocaine, and said that he was going to
 play with her until he had finished the cocaine and would hurt her if she
 refused to comply.  Defendant bound her hands and feet with a leather belt
 and a dirty towel.  Over the next few hours, defendant performed anal
 intercourse and oral sex on the victim, and forced her to perform oral sex
 on him.  He forced her to lick his feet and anus.  The victim also reported
 being struck on the back, possibly by a stick that defendant had in the
 room.  According to her story, defendant repeatedly injected himself with
 cocaine during the night.  She attempted to reason with him and calm him
 down by getting him to talk about himself and his family, and talking about
 herself.  Toward morning, defendant "came down" from the drugs and let her
 leave.  He offered to drive her home or get her a taxi, but she declined.
 She retrieved the table and rug, and returned to her friend's apartment
 where she had eaten dinner the night before.
      Defendant told a very different story.  He admitted meeting the victim
 that night and offering her a ride home.  They chatted for the fairly brief
 drive to her apartment.  He asked her to come to his house to watch a
 movie, and she agreed.  On arriving at defendant's house, they sat together
 in the living room, and then went upstairs to meet his roommates.  He
 discovered that they were not home, contrary to their usual practice and

 

 his expectations.  They proceeded to his room, where they chatted about
 themselves and their families.  He turned the conversation to sex, and they
 engaged in consensual foreplay.  He denies any intercourse took place, but
 admits that the victim indicated she wanted him to penetrate her anus with
 his penis, and that he did so briefly until she indicated discomfort.
 According to defendant, they spent the rest of the night together engaged in
 conversation, foreplay-type activity, and mutual masturbation.  He
 maintains that their interaction was completely consensual.
      A couple of hours after returning to her friend's apartment, the victim
 went to the hospital and was given a thorough medical examination by Dr.
 Misty Porter.  The victim explained that she had been bound and raped.
 According to her trial testimony, Dr. Porter's examination revealed tears in
 the superficial tissues of the victim's rectum, but uncovered no other cuts
 or bruises on her body.  The doctor performed the standard protocol for
 gathering evidence of sexual assault in the course of the examination.
      Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated sexual
 assault, 13 V.S.A. {{ 3252(a)(1), 3253(a)(3).  A public defender was
 appointed to represent defendant before his arraignment on January 20, 1992.
 On June 9, 1992, defendant filed a motion requesting to proceed pro se, and
 the motion was granted after a lengthy colloquy between defendant and the
 court.  The court ordered the public defender, Jerry Schwarz, to act as
 standby counsel to defendant, which meant that Schwarz should be present in
 the ensuing proceedings as much as possible, and that he provide defendant
 the materials and services to take depositions.
      On appeal, defendant claims the following errors:  (1) denial of
 investigative services and expert testimony, (2) failure to appoint counsel

 

 for defendant at the start of the third day of trial, (3) jury prejudice,
 and (4) prejudicial remarks by the prosecution during jury voir dire.
                                     I.
                                     A.
      On July 8, 1992, defendant filed a motion requesting in part that the
 court approve an investigator to research an expert witness to respond to
 Dr. Porter's examination report of the victim.  The motion was denied.
 Defendant maintains that denial of the services of an investigator and
 expert witness, at public expense, contravened his constitutional rights to
 present evidence and call for witnesses in his defense, and his rights under
 the Public Defender Act (PDA), 13 V.S.A. {{ 5201-5277.  Defendant makes the
 constitutional claims for the first time on appeal; therefore, we do not
 consider them.  State v. Prue, 138 Vt. 331, 331-32,