Title: State v. Hutchins

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Hutchins (2004-188); 178 Vt. 551; 878 A.2d 241

2005 VT 47

[Filed 08-Apr-2005]

                                ENTRY ORDER

                                2005 VT 47

                     SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-188

                            FEBRUARY TERM, 2005

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }	District Court of Vermont,
     v.	                               }	Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit
                                       }	
Wayne Hutchins	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 916-12-02 AnCr

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

            In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant Wayne Hutchins appeals from his conditional guilty
  plea to committing perjury.  He argues that the trial court erred in
  denying his motion to dismiss the prosecution for lack of a prima facie
  case because: (1) the State failed to present sufficient independent
  corroborating evidence to support the charge; and (2) the State failed to
  show that the alleged perjurious testimony was material to any issue at the
  hearing where the alleged perjury occurred.  We agree that the State's
  corroborative evidence was insufficient to support the charge, and we
  therefore reverse. 

       ¶  2.  In August 2002, defendant pled guilty to committing a lewd act
  and furnishing malt beverage to a minor.  When the victim of the criminal
  acts learned that defendant had received a large monetary settlement from
  his insurance company in an unrelated matter, she filed a civil suit
  against him.  In connection with her suit, plaintiff filed an ex parte
  motion for trustee process, seeking to attach any of defendant's assets
  held by others.  The court denied the motion and set the matter for an
  expedited hearing at plaintiff's request.  At the hearing, held on
  September 18, 2002, defendant was served with a motion for a possessory
  writ of attachment.  Plaintiff asserted that there was a reasonable
  likelihood that she would recover judgment against defendant in an amount
  greater than or equal to $350,000, and there was a clear danger that
  defendant would spend whatever cash he received from his insurance
  settlement.  Although defendant indicated that he had not had time to hire
  counsel, the court asked him to respond to plaintiff's motions under oath.  
 
       ¶  3.  Defendant was then examined under oath by plaintiff's attorney. 
  He testified that he had received $100,000 in insurance proceeds
  approximately two weeks before the hearing.  He stated that he had spent
  $30,000 cash on a mobile home, buried $40,000, and given $10,000 to his
  son, $10,000 to Larry Lanphere, and $10,000 to Paul Mayer.  At the close of
  the hearing, the trial court approved the possessory attachment of $350,000
  worth of defendant's assets.  Later that day, Paul Mayer provided a signed
  affidavit denying that defendant had given him $10,000.  Mayer averred that
  on the morning of the attachment hearing, defendant had come running into
  his workplace, and said that he was being sued.  According to Mayer, he
  rebuffed defendant's attempt to give him $10,000. 

       ¶  4.  The State then charged defendant with perjury, alleging that he
  had knowingly testified falsely to a material matter.  Defendant moved to
  dismiss the charge for lack of a prima facie case, asserting that the
  State's evidence was insufficient to prove falsity and materiality.  As to
  his first argument, defendant maintained that the State failed to present
  any independent corroborating evidence to prove the falsity of his
  statements as required under Vermont law.  See, e.g., State v. Tinker, 165
  Vt. 548, 548,