Title: In re E.F.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re E.F. (2003-424); 177 Vt. 534; 862 A.2d 239

2004 VT 79

[Filed 24-Aug-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 79

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-424

                               JUNE TERM, 2004

  In re E.F., Juvenile	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
       	                               }	Addison Family Court
  	                               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 15-3-03 Anjv

                                                Trial Judge: Helen M. Toor

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

       ¶  1.  E.F., an eleven-year-old child, appeals from an adjudication
  of delinquency for aiding an attempt to poison.  The Addison County Family
  Court found E.F. delinquent without trial, based solely on facts stipulated
  by his attorney.  Because the family court did not conduct a Vermont Rule
  of Criminal Procedure 11(c) colloquy regarding these admissions, we find
  plain error and reverse.

       ¶  2.  E.F. delivered what he thought was poisonous silica gel to two
  friends at school, who put some of the gel into a teacher's coffee.  The
  State filed a petition for delinquency against E.F. charging him with
  aiding in the commission of a felony - an attempted poisoning - "in
  violation of 13 V.S.A., Section 2305 and 13 V.S.A., Section 3." (FN1)  At
  the preliminary hearing, E.F. denied the petition.  E.F. then filed a
  motion to dismiss on grounds that neither attempt, nor the underlying
  offense, 13 V.S.A. § 2306 (poisoning), could be proved because silica gel
  is not poisonous.  The family court denied the motion, ruling that an
  attempted poisoning conviction could follow "[i]f the State can prove that
  [E.F.] intended to place a poisonous substance into a drink to hurt
  someone." 

       ¶  3.  At the June 19, 2003 status conference, E.F.'s attorney
  entered into an agreement with the State to submit a set of stipulated
  facts from which the court would decide the case on the merits without a
  hearing.  E.F.'s attorney agreed to submit the following stipulated facts:

    1.  On January 30, 2003, E.F. learned that M.S. and J.K. planned
    to poison[], a teacher at [their school].

    2.  M.S. told E.F. that J.K. was going to bring in some "shoe
    poison," by which M.S. meant silica gel, a substance that is
    packed in shoe boxes.
   
    3.  On January 31, 2003, E.F. brought some silica gel into school
    and gave it to J.K.  E.F. intended that M.S. and J.K. place the
    silica gel in [the teacher's] coffee.

    4.  M.S. and J.K. put the silica gel into [the teacher's] coffee.

    5.  [The teacher] drank a portion of the coffee.

    6.  Silica gel is not poisonous; however, the labels generally
    read "Throw Away.  DO  NOT EAT."

    7.  E.F. believed that silica gel was poisonous.  E.F. intended
    that [the teacher's] ingestion of the substance would injure her.

    8.  [The teacher] suffered no physical harm as a result of this
    conduct.

  No merits hearing was conducted.  Based on the stipulated facts, the court
  again concluded that impossibility - the fact that silica gel is not
  poisonous - was no defense and adjudicated E.F. a delinquent child for
  "aiding in the commission of a felony, i.e., the attempt to poison." 
  Although E.F. was never charged with attempt under 13 V.S.A. § 9, the court
  indicated in a footnote that it incorporated the charge of attempt because
  the defendant noted "that the charge apparently intended also to refer to
  13 V.S.A. [§] 9, the attempt provision, and the State agree[d]."    

       ¶  4.  Following its decision, the court held a disposition hearing,
  at which E.F., his parent/guardians, and his counsel were present, and
  imparted its disposition based upon the stipulated facts.  Nowhere does the
  record reflect that the court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy at any time,
  either prior to accepting the stipulated facts, or prior to entering the
  disposition order based upon those facts.

       ¶  5.  Petitioner argues on appeal that the court's failure to
  conduct a Rule 11 colloquy is plain error.  "Rule 11 is designed to 'assure
  compliance with the requirements set forth in Boykin v. Alabama,