Title: State v. Russo

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Russo (2003-348); 177 Vt. 394; 177 Vt. 365, 865 A.2d 402

2004 VT 103

[Filed 08-Oct-2004]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 26-Oct-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 103

                                No. 2003-348

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

  Vito Russo	                                 June Term, 2004

  Karen R. Carroll, J.

  Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Scott A. Willison,
    Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, and Jane Woodruff, Executive
    Director, State's Attorneys' and Sheriffs' Department, Montpelier, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
    Montpelier, for   Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., (FN1) Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  Defendant, Vito Russo, was convicted by a jury of
  aggravated assault, unlawful trespass, driving under the influence of
  intoxicating liquor, driving with license suspended and four violations of
  conditions of release.  He received a sentence of twenty-one years to
  serve.  He appeals both his conviction for aggravated assault (FN2) and his
  combined sentence claiming that: (1) the evidence does not support his
  conviction; (2) the trial judge wrongfully limited testimony from the sole
  defense witness; (3) the trial judge failed to charge simple assault and
  reckless endangerment as either lesser-included or lesser-related offenses;
  (4) the twenty-one year sentence was based on a pre-sentence investigation
  (PSI) report containing a psychological evaluation conducted by a
  non-expert who was unavailable for cross-examination; and (5) trial counsel
  was ineffective. (FN3)  Having considered those issues preserved for
  appeal, we affirm the conviction. 

       ¶  2.  In addition to the claims considered in this appeal, defendant,
  in his pro se brief, raises ten other arguments, not properly preserved for
  appeal.  Defendant alleges that: (1) the rifle found in his car was the
  fruit of an illegal search; (2) the trial court allowed the State's
  witnesses to testify based upon hearsay and speculation; (3) limitations on
  the scope of cross-examination violated defendant's right to confront the
  State's witnesses; (4) the prosecutor's friendship with the victim and
  involvement in an ongoing civil case where both the victim and defendant
  were parties constituted prosecutorial misconduct; (5) the random
  elimination of two non?designated alternate jurors constituted jury
  tampering; (6) key pieces of evidence were kept from the jury during
  deliberation; (7) the State failed to disclose the PSI report to defendant
  in a timely manner; (8) the State misrepresented and misapplied defendant's
  criminal record during sentencing; (9) no defense was permitted during
  sentencing; and (10) the jury was given an incorrect instruction regarding
  intent and voluntary intoxication.  The record shows that none of these
  claims was preserved during proceedings in the trial court; issues not
  raised during trial cannot subsequently be raised on appeal.  State v.
  Pelican, 160 Vt. 536, 538,