Title: State v. George

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. 88-491



 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
 Raymond R. George                            Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                              October Term, 1991


 Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Susan R. Harritt, Assistant Attorney
   General, and Gayle Middleton, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for
   plaintiff-appellee

 Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and Kerry B. DeWolfe, Appellate
   Attorney, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   After trial by jury, defendant was convicted in district
 court of soliciting a female person for the purpose of prostitution, in
 violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2632(a)(6).  Defendant appeals, claiming (1) the
 court erred in failing to find police entrapment as a matter of law, and (2)
 the statute under which he was convicted violates the equal protection
 guarantees of the United States and Vermont constitutions.  We affirm.
      Neither party disputes the facts.  An informant, Edward Chaloux, re-
 ported to a Burlington police detective on February 8, 1988, that defendant
 had approached him and offered $50 if the informant would find a woman with
 whom defendant could have sexual intercourse.  The detective made arrange-
 ments for an undercover operation in which a female police officer would
 wear an electronic surveillance transmitter while approaching defendant.
 Sergeant Lianne Tuomey agreed to pose as the woman supplied by the informant
 and wear a transmitter, and the informant agreed to introduce her to
 defendant.
      That afternoon, the informant brought the sergeant to a place where
 defendant was waiting and introduced them.  Under her clothing, the sergeant
 wore a microphone that transmitted to a receiving device in a police car
 some distance away where two detectives visually monitored the interaction
 between defendant and the sergeant, and listened to and recorded their
 conversation.
      In the discussion that ensued, the sergeant repeatedly asked defendant
 variations of the question, "What's the deal?"  Defendant did not immedi-
 ately declare that he wanted sex in return for money.  When questioned by
 the sergeant, he said he wanted "good lay, . . . companionship, a little
 loving."  There was quite a bit of further questioning before he said he
 was prepared to pay for sex -- that is, he would give in return "a lot of
 loving and money."  At one point in the conversation, which lasted just over
 ten minutes, defendant asked the undercover officer, "[y]ou aren't a cop or
 anything are you?"  Ultimately, defendant and the sergeant agreed that they
 would meet the following morning and defendant would pay "a hundred bucks
 for the day."       
      Defendant was arrested at the scene.  At the police station, he waived
 his Miranda right to remain silent.  During questioning, he admitted that he
 had been prepared to give money to the undercover police sergeant as payment
 for sexual intercourse.
      At trial, the detective to whom the informant reported and Sergeant
 Tuomey testified, but the informant, who could not be located by the State,
 did not.  Defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss, arguing entrapment and
 the unconstitutionality of the solicitation statute.  The jury heard the
 evidence, including the tape recordings of the conversation between defend-
 ant and the sergeant, as transmitted from the microphone hidden under the
 sergeant's clothing, and the detective's questioning of defendant at the
 police station after the arrest.  After instruction by the court on the
 elements of the crime charged, the standard of proof, and the issue of
 entrapment, the jury found defendant guilty.
      The first issue presented for our review is whether the trial court
 erred when it failed to find entrapment as a matter of law, instead sub-
 mitting the question to the jury.  Entrapment is an affirmative defense.
 State v Wilkins, 144 Vt. 22, 25,