Title: In re Cardinal

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_CARDINAL.93-292; 162 Vt. 418; 649 A.2d 227

[Opinion Filed July 1, 1994]

[Motion for Reargument Denied July 27, 1994]

 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. 93-292


 In re Anthony Cardinal                       Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Washington Superior Court

                                              February Term, 1994



 Alan W. Cheever, J.

 Robert Appel, Defender General, and Seth Lipschutz, Prisoners' Rights
    Office, Montpelier, for petitioner-appellee

 Scot Kline, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson,
    Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for respondent-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.    The State appeals the grant of post-conviction relief to
 petitioner Anthony Cardinal, which the superior court granted on the ground
 that petitioner's lack of meaningful participation in the individual voir
 dire process during jury selection denied him a fair trial.  We reverse.
      Petitioner was charged with sexually assaulting his 17-year-old
 daughter.  His first trial resulted in a mistrial because the jury was
 unable to reach a verdict; petitioner was retried and convicted on the same
 charges, and the conviction was affirmed.  See State v. Cardinal, 155 Vt.
 411, 584 A.2d 1152 (1990).  This petition, filed in superior court pursuant
 to 13 V.S.A. { 7131, was based on allegations that petitioner could not see
 and hear the individual voir dire proceedings because of his distance from

 

 the bench, where the questioning was conducted.  He alleges violations of
 his constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
 United States Constitution and analogous protections under the Vermont
 Constitution, and violation of V.R.Cr.P. 43(a).
      The superior court made the following findings.  Petitioner was seated
 at counsel table with his attorneys during the general voir dire portion of
 jury selection, and had no problem seeing or hearing the venire members.
 When it came time for individual voir dire, the proceedings took place at
 the bench due to the sensitive nature of the questions.  Petitioner had
 started to follow his attorneys to the bench for the questioning, but one of
 his attorneys told him to "wait there."  The venire members were seated
 twenty-five feet from petitioner and the four attorneys stood close by,
 their backs to petitioner.  Because of this, petitioner could not hear most
 of the responses or see the potential jurors' reactions very well.  He never
 told his attorneys or the court that he did not want to observe the
 individual voir dire, but he also did not let his attorneys or the court
 know that he was having difficulty seeing and hearing.  The court concluded
 that the State had not demonstrated a knowing and voluntary waiver of
 petitioner's right to participate in jury selection.  Finding the State had
 also failed to demonstrate a lack of prejudice from the error, the superior
 court granted petitioner the requested relief.
      Both Vermont and federal constitutional law give a criminal defendant
 the right to a jury trial and the concomitant right to be present during
 trial.  The right is rooted in the confrontation clause of the Sixth
 Amendment, Dowdell v. United States,