Title: State v. O'Dell

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. O'Dell (2004-411)

2007 VT 34

[Filed 04-May-2006]

       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.


                                 2007 VT 34

                                No. 2004-411


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit

  Patricia O'Dell                                September Term, 2006


  Paul F. Hudson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

  William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, and Andrew G.
    Costello, Deputy State's Attorney, Bennington, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.


       PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  REIBER, C.J.   Defendant appeals her convictions for
  attempting to impede a police officer and custodial interference, arguing
  that there was insufficient evidence on the first charge and that
  conviction under the second charge was legally impossible.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  On September 13, 2002, the Bennington Family Court issued three
  emergency detention orders granting the Department for Children and
  Families (DCF) (FN1) custody of defendant's children due to alleged
  educational neglect.  Two DCF employees and several law enforcement
  officers went to defendant's mother's house in an attempt to locate the
  children and execute the detention orders.  Upon arrival, a DCF employee
  attempted to explain the orders to defendant.  Defendant refused to release
  the children into DCF custody and would not allow anyone into the house
  without a warrant.  Over the course of approximately two hours, defendant
  intermittently came in and out of the house, speaking with police and DCF
  workers, but continued to refuse entry.  One law enforcement officer left
  to obtain a search warrant.  

       ¶  3.  While waiting for the warrant, a police officer noticed one of
  defendant's children behind the house.  Police officers began to chase the
  child, and defendant followed them.  Defendant concedes that during this
  chase she made contact with an officer and then fell over herself.  At this
  point, police arrested defendant.  She was charged with attempting to
  impede a police officer under 13 V.S.A. § 3001, and custodial interference
  under 13 V.S.A. § 2451(a).  At trial, defendant moved for acquittal
  pursuant to Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a), arguing that there
  was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that she impeded the officer and
  that she did not receive proper notice of the detention orders.  The
  district court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty
  on both counts.
   
       ¶  4.  On appeal, defendant first argues that the district court
  erred in denying her motion for acquittal because there was insufficient
  evidence to support the charge of attempting to impede an officer. 
  Specifically, defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to
  prove that she knowingly and purposefully pushed a police officer to
  prevent him from pursuing her child.  In reviewing a denial of a motion
  based on insufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light
  most favorable to the State, excluding any modifying evidence, and
  determine whether it is sufficient to fairly and reasonably convince a
  trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
  State v. Burnham, 145 Vt. 161, 165,