Title: State v. Tahair

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Tahair  (2000-076); 172 Vt. 76; 772 A.2d 494

[Filed 02-Mar-2001]

       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. 2000-076

State of Vermont                              Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
     v.	                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Brian E. Tahair	                              November Term, 2000

Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

       Lauren Bowerman, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hull
  Johnson, Deputy State's     Attorney, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate
  Attorney, Montpelier, for  Defendant-Appellant.

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

       SKOGLUND, J.  Defendant appeals from a conviction, based on a jury
  verdict, of driving  under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in
  violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2).  He contends the  trial court
  committed plain error in instructing the jury that it could infer from
  defendant's failure to  call certain witnesses that their testimony would
  have been harmful to defendant.  We conclude that  the so-called "missing
  witness" instruction has outlived its usefulness in criminal trials, and
  should  be abandoned.  We also conclude, however, that its application in
  this case did not deprive defendant  of any substantial rights or unfairly
  prejudice the jury deliberations.  Accordingly, we 

 

  affirm the judgment.   

       The record evidence was as follows.  On the afternoon of July 6, 1999,
  Burlington police  officers Bean and Ward responded to a domestic assault
  complaint on Riverside Avenue in front of  Corrigan's Auto Repair.  Upon
  their arrival, the officers observed a man and woman, later identified  as
  defendant and Patricia Sartwell, in the general vicinity of a maroon
  Chevrolet Corsica registered  to defendant.  The vehicle's windows were
  broken, glass was scattered on the ground, and the  officers later observed
  that the key was broken off in the ignition.  

       Officer Bean spoke with Sartwell while Officer Ward met with
  defendant.  Bean observed  that Sartwell was crying and had scrapes on her
  arm.  The officer testified that he asked Sartwell  what had happened, and
  she informed him that she had been walking home from work when a  vehicle
  passed which she recognized.  Defendant and another woman were in the car. 
  The car  stopped about 100 to 200 feet past Sartwell, and a woman got out
  and fled.  Sartwell told the officer  that defendant then drove back to
  where she was standing.  Although Sartwell acknowledged that she  was angry
  about the other woman, and that she had smashed defendant's car windows,
  she also told  the officer that she did not want to get defendant in
  trouble.  	

       Officer Ward testified that, while speaking with defendant, he
  observed that defendant  smelled of alcohol, and that his eyes were
  dilated. (FN1)  The officer testified that defendant claimed  to be a
  passenger in the car driven by a woman named Susan Olsaver.  Defendant told
  the officer that  Olsaver pulled over after passing Sartwell on the road,
  and left the scene because Sartwell was  obviously angry.  Defendant then
  returned to speak with Sartwell, who used a baseball bat to smash 

 

  his car windows.  Defendant did not indicate who drove his car back to
  Sartwell after Olsaver left. 

       Officer Bean also spoke with defendant at the scene.  According to
  Bean, defendant initially  admitted that he had been driving the Cavalier
  with a drink in his hand when he passed Sartwell, but  later changed his
  story to indicate that the woman in the car, Olsaver, was the driver.  When
  Bean  asked him who drove the car back to Sartwell after Olsaver left, he
  said, "You figure it out."   According to Bean, defendant never identified
  anyone named "Kevin" as the driver, and never  mentioned anyone named
  "Gerald."
  	
       A motorist who was driving on Riverside Avenue at the time testified
  that she observed a  vehicle stopped along the side of the road, and saw a
  woman with something in her hand smashing  out the windows.  The motorist
  also observed a man who was standing near the driver's door of the  vehicle
  walk to the rear of the car, and moments later saw the man and woman facing
  each other and  gesturing as though they were arguing. 

       The defense claimed at trial that an individual named Kevin Whitcomb
  was actually driving  defendant's vehicle during the events in question,
  and that defendant was following in a different car  driven by one Gerald
  Barber.  Sartwell testified for the defense.  She admitted that she saw 
  defendant's car pass, recognized it as defendant's, became angry, and
  smashed its windows.  She  denied, however, that defendant was the driver. 
  She indicated instead that she did not know the man  who was driving the
  car, although she recognized him as someone she had seen with defendant. 
  She  could not explain where the man went after the police arrived.  She
  acknowledged informing the  police at the scene that defendant had driven
  the car back to talk with her, but claimed that she had  lied to them
  because she was angry with defendant and wanted to get him in trouble.  

       Defendant testified in his own behalf.  He claimed that several days
  before the incident he  

 

  had loaned his car to a friend named Kevin Whitcomb.  He stated that, on
  the date in question, he  and Whitcomb and Susan Olsaver and another friend
  named Gerald Barber all left another friend's  house in Burlington. 
  According to defendant, he was in a car driven by Barber, and Whitcomb
  drove  off in defendant's car with Olsaver.  While driving down Riverside
  Avenue with Barber, defendant  observed Olsaver running up the road.  They
  stopped, and Olsaver informed defendant that Sartwell  was upset and was
  smashing his car windows.  Barber then dropped off defendant at his car and
  left.  Shortly thereafter, the police arrived.  Defendant claimed that he
  informed the officers that a friend  had been driving his car.  He denied
  ever having told officer Bean that he was the driver.  He also  testified
  that he later attempted, without success, to locate Whitcomb and Barber.

       At trial,  neither the State nor defendant produced Whitcomb, Barber,
  or Olsaver as a witness.  The trial court, on its own initiative, gave a
  missing witness instruction to the jury.  The instruction  provided as
  follows:

       There was evidence that there were witnesses to the
       incident in  question who were not called on to testify. 
       These witnesses  presumably could have corroborated the other
       defense witnesses.  I  instruct you that you may infer from
       the failure to call the witnesses  that the testimony that
       would have been offered by those witnesses  would have in
       some way been harmful to the defendant's case.   However, I
       would caution you that there are many possible reasons  why a
       particular witness would not be called to trial.  The party
       that  didn't call the witness is entitled to explain the
       reason to you.  If you  find that there was another
       explanation for the witness's failure to be  called, then I
       instruct you that you should not make any inference 
       concerning the potential harm or benefit of his or her
       testimony.

       Although defense counsel objected to the instruction at the charge
  conference, he failed to  renew his objection after the instruction was
  delivered to the jury.  Accordingly, we review the claim  on appeal for
  plain error.  See State v. Carpenter, __ Vt. __, __,