Title: State v. Turnbaugh

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Turnbaugh (2002-397); 174 Vt. 532; 811 A.2d 662

[Filed 30-Sep-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-397

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2002


  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit
  Isaac Turnbaugh	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 984-08-02WnCr


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       Defendant is charged with murder in the first degree in violation of
  13 V.S.A. § 2301.   The district court judge ordered defendant held without
  bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553.  Upon the filing of a timely motion for
  review of bail, the court held a bail review hearing to determine if the
  State could produce sufficient admissible evidence to support the order to
  hold without bail.  The State submitted several affidavits from witnesses
  including three from defendant's acquaintances who claim to have heard
  defendant make incriminating statements.  Defendant also submitted written
  affidavits from witnesses in addition to live testimony from defendant's
  mother and his treating physician.  The court's written decision, issued
  September 2, 2002, continued defendant's detention without bail.  Defendant
  appealed to this Court pursuant to the Vermont Constitution, Chapter II, §
  40 and 13 V.S.A. § 7556(e). 

       The Vermont Constitution specifically provides that "[a] person
  accused of an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment may be held
  without bail when the evidence of guilt is great."  Vt. Const. ch. II, §
  40(1).  This provision is implemented through 13 V.S.A. § 7553.  That
  statutory section also provides that, if the evidence of guilt is not
  great, the person shall be bailable in accordance with § 7554 of Title 13,
  which governs release prior to trial.
        
       The trial court decided the bail review in this case by relying on the
  standard set forth in State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433, 563 A.2d 258 (1989).  In
  Duff, we adopted the standard set forth in V.R.Cr.P. 12(d) as the correct
  standard of review under Chapter II, § 40 of the Vermont Constitution and
  under 13 V.S.A. § 7553.  See generally id.  Under that standard--used to
  judge a motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case--the prosecution
  must establish by affidavits, depositions, sworn oral testimony or other
  admissible evidence "that it has substantial, admissible evidence as to the
  elements of the offense. . .sufficient to prevent the grant of a motion for
  judgment of acquittal at the trial."  V.R.Cr.P. 12(d)(2).  A motion for
  acquittal must be granted if "the evidence is insufficient to sustain a
  conviction."  V.R.Cr.P. 29(a).  Thus, the standard controlling a motion to
  dismiss for lack of a prima 

 

  facie case is "whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to
  the State and excluding modifying evidence, can fairly and reasonably show
  defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."  Duff, 151 Vt. at 439, 563 A.2d  at 263 (internal quotations omitted).  In applying the Duff standard,
  the trial court excluded affidavits submitted by defendant, holding that
  they represented conflicting or modifying evidence and, as such, the law
  required they not be considered.   

       Defendant contends that the court erred in applying the Duff standard
  because its application improperly excludes valid evidence that is
  otherwise authorized under V.R.Cr.P. 12 and the more recent case of State
  v. Fanger, 164 Vt. 48,