Title: In re Wilkinson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Wilkinson  (95-156); 165 Vt 183; 678 A.2d 1257

[Opinion Filed 12-Apr-1996]

       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. 95-156


In re Charles Wilkinson                      Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
                                             Windham Superior Court

                                             January Term, 1996


Richard W. Norton, J.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Judith A. Ianelli, Prisoners'
  Rights Office, Montpelier, for petitioner-appellant

Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Christopher C.
  Moll, Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for respondent-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.  Petitioner appeals the district court's denial of
  post-conviction relief, arguing that the court erred (1) by permitting the
  judge who presided over defendant's original trial to testify as the
  State's expert witness; and (2) in finding that petitioner was not
  prejudiced by defense counsel's failure to adequately impeach the State's
  expert witness.  We reverse, and remand for a new post-conviction relief
  hearing.

                                I.

       In 1990, following a trial by jury, petitioner was convicted of both
  sexual assault on a minor and lewd and lascivious conduct.  On appeal, this
  Court upheld the conviction.  State v. Wilkinson, No. 90-418 (Vt. Oct. 10,
  1991) (mem.).  Petitioner then moved for post-conviction relief, pursuant
  to 13 V.S.A. § 7131, claiming that he had been denied effective assistance
  of counsel at trial.  Specifically, petitioner argued that defense counsel
  did not impeach the State's expert witness with allegations of past
  professional misconduct and perjury, and that counsel failed to object when
  the same expert testified that the victim had been sexually abused by

 

  petitioner.  The latter claim is based on our decision in State v. Weeks,
  160 Vt. 393, 403,