Title: State v. Durenleau

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_DURENLEAU.93-168; 163 Vt 8; 652 A.2d 981

[Filed 30-Sep-1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 2-Nov-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. 93-168


State of Vermont                        Supreme Court

                                        On Appeal from
    v.                                  District Court of
Vermont,
                                        Unit No. 2, Chittenden
Circuit

Rebecca S. Durenleau                    May Term, 1994


Matthew I. Katz, J.

Scot L. Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela
Hall Johnson and Rosemary
  Hull, Deputy State's Attorneys, Burlington, for plaintiff-
appellee

Peter F. Langrock and Beth Robinson of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
Middlebury, for defendant-
  appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant Rebecca Durenleau appeals her conviction
following a jury trial for the first-degree murder of her husband, Michael
Durenleau.  Defendant contends that the State failed to present sufficient
evidence to establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  We agree and
reverse. 

     Defendant claims a number of errors on appeal, but in light of our
disposition of this case we consider only her claim regarding insufficiency of
the evidence.  At the close of the State's case and after trial, defendant
unsuccessfully moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to V.R.Cr.P 29,
which provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he court on motion of a defendant .
. . shall order the entry of judgment of acquittal . . . if the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction."  In reviewing a denial of a Rule 29
motion, this Court must determine whether the evidence presented by the State,
taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution and 

 

excluding any modifying evidence, sufficiently and fairly supports a finding
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Poirier, 142 Vt. 595, 599,