Title: State v. Haner

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Haner (2005-272)

2007 VT 49

[Filed 01-Jun-2007]


       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.


                                 2007 VT 49

                                No. 2005-272


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit

  Harold Haner, Sr.                              January Term, 2007


  Nancy Corsones, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney
    General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Davenport, Supr. J.,  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.  Defendant Harold Haner, Sr. appeals the district
  court's denial of his motion for a new trial.  He claims that the district
  court erred by: (1) refusing to grant use immunity to his brother who had
  previously made exculpatory statements, and  (2) ruling that several
  proffered documents containing confessions by his brother were inadmissible
  hearsay.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  In October 2000, defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual
  assault on his daughter, A.H.  We affirmed the conviction in November 2001. 
  In late February 2002, defendant's brother, who was seventeen at the time,
  went with their mother to the state police and confessed to the crime for
  which defendant had been convicted-sexually assaulting A.H. in March 1999. 
  Defendant's brother then proceeded to write twenty-three letters to various
  parties, including defendant, expressing his guilt. 

       ¶  3.  In June 2002, defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on
  newly discovered evidence, attaching a sworn affidavit by his brother that
  included a confession to the sexual assault.  An evidentiary hearing on the
  motion was held on July 30, 2003.  At the hearing, defendant's brother
  testified that he had come to court to confess to a crime that he had
  committed.  He further testified that he had waited so long to come forward
  because he did not believe his brother could be convicted of a crime he did
  not commit, and that he had only written a note to their mother confessing
  to the sexual assault when he feared defendant would go to jail.  When
  defendant's brother was asked to provide details about the sexual assault,
  the court cautioned him against self-incrimination and asked if he wished
  to speak to an attorney before proceeding.  He replied in the affirmative. 
  An attorney was provided to him, and from that point forward he refused to
  answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against
  self-incrimination. 
   
       ¶  4.  Defendant subsequently filed a motion requesting that the
  court "use its inherent power to grant use immunity to [his brother] and
  thus require[] him to testify in the pending motion for a new trial."  The
  court denied the motion in September 2003.  The hearing on the motion for a
  new trial reconvened in March 2005.  Defendant's brother again testified
  that he had previously confessed to sexually assaulting A.H., however, he
  invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he had actually committed
  the offense.  In support of his motion for a new trial, defendant proffered
  several sources containing confessions by his brother: statements to the
  state police; letters written to defendant, A.H., and others; an affidavit;
  and deposition and hearing testimony predating his invocation of the
  privilege against self-incrimination.  At the court's request, the parties
  filed memoranda addressing admissibility of the proffered evidence under
  the statement-against-penal-interest exception to the hearsay rule.  V.R.E.
  804(b)(3).  The court deemed the confessions  hearsay, and consequently
  denied defendant's motion for a new trial.  This appeal followed.

       ¶  5.  Defendant's underlying claim on appeal is that the trial court
  erred in denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to Vermont Rule of
  Criminal Procedure 33.  He bases this claim of error on two specific
  actions of the court: (1) its refusal to grant use immunity to his brother,
  and (2) its exclusion of his brother's confessions as inadmissible hearsay. 
  For a new trial to be granted under Rule 33, the evidence must be such that
  it "would probably change the result upon retrial."  State v. Palmer, 169
  Vt. 639, 640,