Title: State v. Setien

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Setien (2000-548); 173 Vt. 576; 795 A.2d 1135

[Filed 07-Jan-2002]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 08-Feb-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-548

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit
Charles L. Setien	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1579-12-99 WnCr

                                                Trial Judge: Mark J. Keller

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Charles Setien appeals his conviction for larceny from the
  person, 13 V.S.A. §  2503, attempted assault and robbery, 13 V.S.A. §§ 9,
  608, and as a habitual offender, 13 V.S.A. § 11,  claiming that (1) he was
  denied his right to testify because the trial court ruled in limine that
  the State  could impeach defendant with evidence of his past criminal
  convictions; (2) he was convicted of two  crimes but committed only one;
  (3) the habitual offender conviction was improperly based on his  change of
  plea in two cases for which no transcripts were available; and (4) the
  jury's determination  that defendant was a habitual offender may not have
  been unanimous.  We affirm.

       Defendant's convictions arose from events occurring in Barre, Vermont
  on March 15, 1999.   On that date, Viola and Victor Aldrich, both in their
  seventies at the time, were home watching  television when defendant
  entered their home looking for Victor.  Victor and Viola collected, bought 
  and sold coins for many years, and kept some of their collection at home. 
  Defendant told Victor,  who was disabled and could not get out of his
  chair, that he wanted to buy some coins.  Victor told  defendant that they
  did not sell coins from their home at night.  Although Victor told
  defendant that  the coins were at the bank in a vault, defendant insisted
  that the couple had coins in their home.   Viola became nervous, called to
  her grandson who lived upstairs, and asked him to call the police.  

       Meanwhile, the couple gave defendant permission to use their telephone
  so he could call for a  ride.  After hanging up the phone, defendant again
  tried to persuade Victor to sell him some coins.   Victor refused. 
  Defendant then ordered the couple to open their safe, threatening to kill
  them with a  gun he said he possessed if they did not comply.  When the
  couple continued to refuse defendant's  demands, he reached under the top
  of Viola's nightgown and ripped off a chain and a gold coin she  wore
  around her neck, saying, "I will have one gold piece anyway."  Defendant
  also took some  foreign coins from a glass candle holder in the couple's
  home, and then he left.  He was later arrested  after a coin dealer
  identified him as the person who sold him the coin stolen from Viola.

 

       Although neither Victor nor Viola identified defendant as the
  perpetrator immediately, they  were familiar with him because he had worked
  on their home some time previous to March 15.  At  that time, the couple
  allowed defendant to eat lunch in their home, and they discussed coin
  collecting  with him.  Defendant has a distinctive lisp, but again neither
  Victor nor Viola mentioned that to the  police right after the crime took
  place.  They also failed to identify him by name after a photo lineup. 
  Eventually, the couple were able to tell the police that defendant was the
  person who entered their  home that evening.  Defendant was thereafter
  convicted, and he appealed to this Court.

       Defendant first argues that he was denied his right to testify because
  the court ruled  unfavorably on his motion in limine to exclude impeachment
  evidence consisting of his prior  convictions for false pretenses and
  attempt to defraud.  In response, the State argues that defendant  failed
  to preserve this claim for review because he did not testify at trial;
  therefore, the evidence was  never admitted.  The State asks us to adopt
  the United States Supreme Court's decision in Luce v.  United States,