Title: State v. Olsen

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Olsen  (95-119); 165 Vt 208; 680 A.2d 107

[Opinion Filed 10-May-1996]

       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. 95-119


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit

Thomas K. Olsen                                   January Term, 1996


Walter M. Morris, Jr., J.

       M. Patricia Zimmerman, Windsor County State's Attorney, White River
  Junction, for plaintiff-appellee

       Charles S. Martin of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       MORSE, J.   Defendant Thomas Olsen appeals his conviction by jury for
  the second-degree murder of his girlfriend's two-year-old daughter,
  Melissa, arguing that the trial court erred by (1) denying his motion for
  judgment of acquittal on the issue of his intent to kill, (2) instructing
  the jury on a theory of second-degree murder not charged in the
  information, (3) excluding evidence of prior allegations of child abuse
  against the daycare provider, and (4) failing to grant his motion for new
  trial on newly discovered evidence.  We affirm.

       On November 3, 1992, the day of the death, defendant and Melissa's
  mother picked up Melissa and her sister between 4:15 and 4:30 p.m. from
  their daycare provider.  Melissa had been exhibiting cold-like symptoms,
  was inactive, and had not had a good appetite for a few days.  Upon
  arriving home, Melissa's mother carried her into the house because she was
  not feeling well.  Mother then went directly to an appointment scheduled
  for 4:30 p.m., leaving defendant with the children.

       Defendant's brother, who was in the process of moving into the home,
  arrived at

 

  approximately 4:45 p.m.  Melissa's older sister and defendant's daughter
  were coloring in the kitchen.  A few minutes later, defendant called to his
  brother to come upstairs where Melissa was lying on a love seat in
  defendant's bedroom.  Defendant explained to his brother that she had
  fallen down the stairs.  The brother observed that Melissa appeared to have
  "the wind knocked out of her," and to be "a little flush," her lips being
  "just a little discolored maybe." The brother suggested that defendant take
  her to the hospital.  They arrived at the hospital emergency room at
  approximately 5:00 p.m.  At 6:23 Melissa was pronounced dead.

                                I.

       Defendant first contends that the trial court erred by denying his
  motion for judgment of acquittal, claiming that the evidence presented at
  trial was insufficient to establish that he acted with "malice," the
  requisite state of mind necessary to support a conviction of murder.

       "Malice" has been defined as "an intention to kill, an intention to do
  great bodily harm, or a wanton disregard of the likelihood that one's
  behavior may naturally cause death or great bodily harm."  State v.
  Doucette, 143 Vt. 573, 582,