Title: State v. Powell

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. 89-627



 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
 Peter J. Powell                              Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit

                                              February Term, 1992



 Francis B. McCaffrey, J.

 Peter R. Neary, Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for
   plaintiff-appellee

 Robert Katims of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.   Defendant Peter Powell appeals his conviction for assault
 and robbery, 13 V.S.A. { 608(a).  He argues that the district court erred in
 refusing to instruct the jury that, if it had a reasonable doubt on whether
 he was guilty of assault and robbery or one of its lesser-included offenses,
 it must find him guilty only of the lesser offense.  Defendant also argues
 that the court erred in its transitional instruction between the greater and
 lesser offenses.  We affirm.
      The State charged that defendant committed assault and robbery by
 stealing money from the victim while threatening him with a knife.
 Defendant denied the incident.  Alternatively, he presented a diminished-
 capacity defense, arguing he was so impaired at the time that he could not
 form the requisite criminal intent.  This argument was based on defendant's
 claim that he and the victim had drunk heavily and smoked crack cocaine
 during the day, and that he had injected himself in private with a mixture
 of cocaine and heroin.  The State conceded that defendant had been drinking,
 but contested his claim of drug use.  The jury found defendant guilty as
 charged.
                                     I.
      Assault and robbery is committed by one who "assaults another and robs,
 steals, or takes from his person or in his presence money or other property
 which may be the subject of larceny."  13 V.S.A. { 608(a).  The crime con-
 sists of the combined elements of assault and larceny.  See State v.
 Francis, 151 Vt. 296, 307, 561 A.2d 392, 398-99 (1989).  Thus, in the
 present case, the State's burden was to prove that defendant intentionally
 put the victim in fear of imminent, serious bodily injury and intentionally
 deprived him of money, intending to do so permanently.  See id.  The court
 charged that if the State proved that defendant intended only one of these
 results, he would be guilty of simple assault or petit larceny, but not the
 more serious combined offense.
      Defendant requested the court to instruct the jury as follows:
           You are instructed that if the defendant could be con-
           victed of a lesser offense, in case of a reasonable
           doubt between greater or lesser offenses, you must
           convict the defendant of the lesser offense only.  This
           is because common principles of humanity and justice
           create a duty first, to pronounce the defendant innocent
           until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and,
           secondly, after the defendant is shown to have committed
           an unlawful act, to look for every excuse which may
           reduce the guilt to the lowest point consistent with the
           facts proven.
 The court refused.  Instead, it gave the jury a general instruction on the
 presumption of innocence and the necessity that defendant be convicted only
 on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  The court explained the elements of
 assault and robbery and the relevance of defendant's intoxication to his
 capacity to form criminal intent.  It instructed the jury to decide whether
 the State had met its burden of proof on each element of assault and
 robbery, and to stop its deliberations if it found defendant guilty.  If the
 jury were to find defendant not guilty of assault and robbery, the court
 charged, it should then consider the lesser-included offenses.  The court
 explained the elements of simple assault, reiterated defendant's
 diminished-capacity claim, and told the jury to decide whether the State had
 met its burden on each element of that offense.  The court repeated this
 procedure in its instruction on petit larceny and reminded the jury not to
 consider the lesser-included offenses unless it found defendant not guilty
 of assault and robbery.
      Defendant argues these instructions violated State v. Duff, 150 Vt.
 329,