Title: State v. Jones

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_JONES.92-521; 160 Vt. 440; 631 A.2d 840


 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.


                                 No. 92-521

 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 Leo Jones                                    May Term, 1993


 Matthew I. Katz, J.

 Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
    Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

 John F. Evers and Kevin E. Brown of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, for
    defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      GIBSON, J.    Defendant was convicted by jury of two counts of sexual
 assault in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(3) and two counts of lewd and
 lascivious conduct in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2602.   All four counts arose
 from allegations that defendant had sexually abused his stepdaughter.  On
 appeal, he claims the court erred (1) in denying his motion for acquittal on
 the two charges of sexual assault because the State failed to prove the
 requisite sexual act, (2) in denying his motion for a new trial because
 unfairly prejudicial physical evidence was improperly admitted and three
 witnesses were improperly permitted to testify, and (3) in denying his
 motions for mistrial because the State improperly cross-examined defendant
 concerning uncharged sexual misconduct and the child's mother improperly
 revealed to the jury that she had obtained a relief-from-abuse order against
 defendant.  We affirm.
                                     I.
      Defendant first argues that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal
 on both counts of sexual assault because the State failed to produce clear,
 precise, and explicit evidence of the sexual acts charged.  The informations
 charge defendant with engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with a person
 under the age of sixteen, consisting of contact between the penis and the
 vulva.  See 13 V.S.A. { 3251(1) (defining sexual act).  Defendant relies on
 State v. Prime, 137 Vt. 340, 342,