Title: State v. Findlay

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Findlay (99-222); 171 Vt. 594; 765 A.2d 483 

[Filed 31-Oct-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-222

                              MARCH TERM, 2000

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
                                       }
Ian Findlay	                       }	DOCKET NO. 1121-7-97 Wmcr

                                                Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson

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

       Defendant Ian Findlay appeals from his conviction for the sale of
  marijuana.  He alleges that the  court erred in (1) limiting the scope of
  cross-examination of a witness, (2) admitting a photograph into  evidence
  and identification testimony based on that photograph, (3) denying his
  request for jury  instructions on nullification, and (4) denying his motion
  for acquittal based on insufficiency of the  evidence.  We reverse and
  remand for a new trial.

       The Brattleboro police arranged a drug buy between defendant and an
  informant, Paul Roy, that  took place on the evening of November 21, 1995.
  (FN1)   Detective Michael Peterson searched Roy,  provided him with $130,
  and transported him to the parking lot of a local shopping center.  From
  this  point, Roy walked toward an adjacent parking lot.  Although Peterson
  lost sight of Roy, Lieutenant Steven  Rowell took up observation and
  watched Roy enter a second parking lot and witnessed a tan car pull into 
  that lot and park near a telephone booth.  Roy entered the car and, after a
  couple of minutes, exited and  made his way back to Peterson.  As the car
  left the parking lot, Rowell followed it to where it stopped at a  nearby
  convenience store.  When the driver stepped out of the vehicle, Rowell
  observed the driver's face.   Meanwhile, Roy returned to Peterson and gave
  him a bag of marijuana that he had allegedly purchased  from defendant. 
  Peterson again searched Roy and found no money or other contraband.

       After returning to the police station, Peterson showed Rowell a
  photograph of defendant that  appeared in a 1992 high school yearbook. 
  Rowell positively identified the person in the picture as the  driver of
  the tan car.  He based his identification on characteristics such as nose,
  ears and hair cut.  With  information and evidence gathered from this
  November 21 buy, the State charged defendant with selling  marijuana in
  violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4230(b)(2).  The State did not call informant Roy
  as a witness;  instead, the prosecution based its case mainly on testimony
  provided by Detective Peterson.  Defendant  was convicted and sentenced to
  three to twenty-four months incarceration, all suspended.

                                     I.

       Defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by
  limiting the scope of his  cross-examination of Detective Peterson.  Prior
  to trial, the court excluded, on the State's motion, all  evidence
  regarding other unsuccessful controlled buys involving Roy and arranged by
  Peterson,  including evidence that (1) during a November 8, 1995 sting
  using Roy to buy drugs from defendant,  Roy absconded with $300 in buy
  money; (2) after the police arrested Roy for stealing the buy money, Roy 
  agreed to cooperate and, on November 21, 1995, again tried to purchase
  drugs from defendant; and (3)  after a third sting targeting defendant, on
  May 28, 1996, Roy produced what he claimed to be LSD  purchased from
  defendant in exchange for buy money provided by the police, but the alleged
  contraband  was later determined not to be LSD. (FN2)  Defendant had sought
  to introduce the evidence to  demonstrate that Roy had a motive to "set up"
  the defendant and that Roy had the ability and know-how to manipulate
  controlled-buy situations. 

       In excluding the evidence, the court noted that it would have been
  relevant to Roy's credibility,  were he to testify, but that the evidence
  was not probative of the control under which the November  21 buy took
  place.  Furthermore, the court determined that "the integrity or lack of
  integrity of the  Brattleboro Police Department's procedure for working
  with undercover informants is essentially not  probative at this point and
  is a waste of the time of the court and the jury."  It concluded that
  generally  calling into question the control that the police exercised over
  Roy in controlled-buy situations would be a  distracting issue to the jury.

       Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
  Chapter I, Article 10 of the  Vermont Constitution, a "defendant has a
  right to present exculpatory evidence to aid his defense and to  confront
  witnesses brought against him," where the evidence is relevant and
  admissible under the rules of  evidence.  State v. Corliss, 168 Vt. 333,
  337,