Title: State v. Holcomb

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 90-275


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

David R. Holcomb, Jr.                        January Term, 1991


Matthew I. Katz, J.

William Sorrell, Chittenden County State's Attorney, Burlington, and
  Pamela Hall Johnson, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier,
  for plaintiff-appellee

Kenneth A. Schatz, Acting Defender General, and William A. Nelson,
  Appellate Attorney, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Defendant appeals his conviction after a jury trial of
lewd and lascivious conduct with a fourteen-year-old boy.  He argues that
the trial court committed plain error (1) in not requiring the State to
elect between the two acts of lewd and lascivious conduct the evidence
disclosed, and (2) in failing to charge the jury on the limited purpose for
which evidence of a crime not charged was admitted.  We affirm.
     The information charged defendant with committing a lewd act on the
body of the child "by fondling his genital area and attempting to remove his
pants."  The victim's testimony was that he was staying at defendant's house
for the evening, and sometime after midnight he went to sleep on a couch
while watching television.  Thereafter, he felt defendant's hands touching
his genitals and trying to unbuckle his pants.  He confronted defendant who
told him to go back to sleep, which he did.  He again awoke at some later
point when defendant had a hand over his mouth and was grabbing him by the
testicles.  A struggle ensued, and the victim ran to a nearby apartment
crying that he had been raped.  This occurred between 2:30 and 3:00 A.M.
     Although defendant argues here that the State was required to elect
between the two lewd acts, he did not raise this issue to the trial judge.
Defendant argues that there is no preservation requirement in cases where
the State's evidence shows more than one criminal act, at least two of the
acts are covered by the information, and the State fails to elect between
the acts.  Put another way, defendant argues that the failure to elect, even
in the absence of a request by defendant, is always plain error because we
cannot say with certainty that the jury convicted unanimously on the same
act.  Defendant's argument finds some support in State v. Bonilla, 144 Vt.
411,