Title: State v. Gorbea

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Gorbea  (97-465); 169 Vt. 57; 726 A.2d 68

[Filed 29-Jan-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. 97-465

State of Vermont	                      Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
     v.		                              District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

Joseph C. Gorbea, III	                      November Term, 1998

Edward J. Cashman, J.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

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

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Defendant appeals his convictions for burglary,
  assault, and robbery.  He contends the trial court erred by: (1) failing to
  conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine  whether extraneous information
  improperly influenced the jury; and (2) considering defendant's  lack of
  remorse at sentencing without granting him judicial immunity.  We affirm.

       On November 13, 1996 two individuals entered the home of Yolanda
  Phillips wearing  masks and brandishing a shotgun.  They struck a visitor
  in the mouth and stole Phillips's rent  money.  Although the victims could
  not identify the assailants, they suspected that one of the  perpetrators
  was Tim Flood because Flood had been expected to visit Phillips's house
  that  evening.  Moreover, Flood's car was seen pulling into Phillips's
  driveway about the time of the  incident.

       The following day, Flood was questioned by the police about an
  unrelated crime in which  he was a suspect.  During the questioning, the
  police asked Flood about the Phillips incident.   Flood admitted his role
  in the offense, received a grant of immunity from the state's attorney, 

 

  and recounted the events of that evening.  Flood implicated James Lucero in
  the offense, who later  confessed to his involvement and implicated
  defendant. 

       On the second day of trial, the court officer informed the judge that
  a juror, whom he did  not identify, had expressed concern about the
  presence of spectators in the courtroom who might  be related to defendant. 
  The officer did not present a note to the judge or suggest that the juror 
  was attempting to send the judge a message.  The court understood the
  officer's statement as an  observation, or as something the officer had
  overheard.  The court informed the officer that the  issue would be taken
  up with the sheriff at a security meeting previously scheduled for the noon 
  break.  

       During the meeting, the court raised concerns about the safety of
  jurors leaving the  building after reaching a verdict, noting that family
  members of defendant, a victim, and a State  witness had all attended the
  trial.  Moreover, defendant's mother and aunt had been involved in  an
  altercation with Flood outside the courtroom after his testimony on the
  first day of trial.   Accordingly, the sheriff agreed to supply a security
  detail to escort jurors to their cars after the  verdict, which was
  expected the next day.  The court decided not to inform counsel of the
  security  plans until they were fully formed.

       When trial resumed after the noon break, the court learned that the
  parties expected to  conclude and send the case to the jury that day,
  rather than the next.  The court did not inform  counsel of the additional
  security measures at this time because it was unclear whether they could 
  be put into place on such short notice.  However, the additional security
  arrived shortly after jury  deliberations began.  During deliberations, the
  sheriff informed counsel that the court had  requested additional security
  to assuage any jury concerns about defendant's family.  Defense  counsel
  did not at that time object to the court's actions.

       Following the verdict, however, defense counsel objected to not being
  informed earlier of  the juror's concern, and subsequently filed a
  post-trial motion seeking a new trial based on the  court's "ex parte
  communication with the jurors."  Defense counsel also requested an

 

  evidentiary hearing, and indicated that she intended to call the judge as a
  witness at the hearing.  The court denied the motion for a new trial and
  denied the request to call the judge as a witness,  but agreed to allow the
  parties to submit proposed questions to be sent to the jurors. 

       The parties filed a joint letter with the court outlining nine
  questions which they proposed  to ask the jurors at an evidentiary
  hearing.(FN1) After reviewing the questions, however, the  court
  concluded that no prejudicial extraneous information or influence had been
  conveyed to the  jury prior to the verdict.  There was no evidence that any
  of the trial spectators had conducted  themselves improperly or had called
  attention to themselves other than by their mere presence.  The court also
  noted that there was no allegation or evidence that any of the jurors had
  observed  or heard of the incident involving the alleged assault against
  Flood earlier in the trial.   Accordingly, the court concluded that the
  allegations did not warrant an inquiry into the jury's  deliberative
  process. 

       Prior to the sentencing hearing, defense counsel filed a letter with
  the court advising that  defendant could not make a statement at sentencing
  without immunity.  At the hearing, the court  sentenced defendant to five
  to fifteen years.  In imposing sentence, the court noted that defendant 
  had not "face[d] up to [his] problems."  The court rejected counsel's
  argument that defendant 

 

  could not accept responsibility for his actions without a grant of
  immunity.  This appeal followed.

                                     I.

       Defendant first contends the court erred in failing to conduct an
  evidentiary hearing to  determine whether extraneous influences improperly
  influenced the jury's verdict.  Determining  whether a verdict was affected
  by extraneous influences "`is a fact-driven exercise'" that turns  on the
  particular facts and circumstances of each case.  State v. McKeen, 165 Vt.
  469, 472,