Title: State v. Harrington

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Harrington (2001-510); 174 Vt. 584; 816 A.2d 501

[Filed 04-Nov-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-510

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2002


  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit
  Christopher M. Harrington	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 859-7-01 Frcr

                                                Trial Judge: James R. Crucitti  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant appeals his jury conviction of domestic assault, arguing
  that (1) the evidence was insufficient to convict him of recklessly causing
  bodily injury to the victim, and (2) the trial court committed prejudicial
  error by refusing to instruct the jury that his previous family court
  testimony, which had been admitted at trial, could be considered as
  substantive evidence.  We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to
  support the conviction, and that defendant was not prejudiced by the
  court's failure to charge the jury as requested.  Accordingly, we affirm
  the conviction.

       The domestic assault charge resulted from an incident in which
  defendant struck the alleged victim in the mouth.  Defendant and the victim
  had a child and had lived together for approximately four years.  At the
  time of the incident, however, the victim was staying with her mother and
  visiting a friend who lived in the same neighborhood as defendant.  At some
  point, the victim saw defendant drive up and asked him to say hello to
  their daughter.  An argument ensued, and defendant struck the victim in the
  mouth.  The victim went to her friend's car so that her friend could drive
  her back to her mother's home, but she contacted police after defendant
  approached the car and took their daughter.  The police arrived later to
  serve a restraining order on defendant.  Defendant was eventually charged
  with "recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to a household member," in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1042.  At trial, the court admitted a videotape
  offered by the State of defendant's testimony from a prior
  relief-from-abuse proceeding concerning the incident.  Following a jury
  trial, defendant was convicted of the charge and placed on probation with a
  one-to-three month suspended sentence.
   
       Defendant first argues on appeal that the trial court should have
  granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was
  insufficient for the jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he
  "recklessly" caused "bodily injury" to the victim.  In reviewing the denial
  of a motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court must "determine whether
  the evidence presented 

 

  by the State, taken in the light most favorable to the prosecution and
  excluding any modifying evidence, sufficiently and fairly supports a
  finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  State v. Durenleau, 163 Vt.
  8, 10,