Title: State v. Squiers

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Squiers (2004-499); 179 Vt. 388; 896 A.2d 80

2006 VT 26

[Filed 24-Mar-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.


                                 2006 VT 26

                                No. 2004-499


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit

  Kenneth H. Squiers  October Term, 2005


  David A. Howard, J.

  William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, and David R.
    Fenster, 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.  BURGESS, J.   Defendant Kenneth Squiers appeals from his jury
  conviction for committing a lewd act with a child under the age of sixteen
  in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2602.  On appeal, defendant claims the trial
  court erred by:  (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal when the
  evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed or attempted to commit
  a lewd or lascivious act; and (2) denying his motions for a mistrial and a
  new trial based on a juror's misconduct.  We affirm.

        
                                     I.


       ¶  2.  We first address defendant's argument that the State's evidence
  was insufficient to convict him of the charged offense.  In reviewing a
  denial of a V.R.Cr.P 29 motion for judgment of acquittal, we view the
  evidence presented by the State in the light most favorable to the
  prosecution, excluding any modifying evidence, and determine whether the
  State's evidence sufficiently and fairly supports a finding of guilt beyond
  a reasonable doubt.  See, e.g., State v. Grega, 168 Vt. 363, 380,