Title: State v. Emery

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 87-535


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit

George O. Emery, Jr.                         March Term, 1989


George F. Ellison, J.

M. Patricia Zimmerman, Windsor County Deputy State's Attorney, White River
  Junction, for plaintiff-appellee

Bruce M. Lawlor, Springfield, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     PECK, J.   Defendant appeals from a Windsor District Court order
concluding that he violated the terms of his probation, after conviction for
lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor.  We affirm.
     Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled nolo contendere to a
charge of lewd and lascivious behavior in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2602.  A
presentence investigation report was ordered, and in December 1985
defendant was sentenced to a term of zero to two years, all suspended except
for thirty days, with the balance of the time on probation.  Among the
conditions in the probation agreement were condition eight, requiring
defendant to participate fully in any program to which he might be referred
by his probation officer, and condition twenty-two, which required that
defendant "actively participate in the Windsor County Sex Offender's Program
and complete the same to the full satisfaction of your Probation Officer."
     Thereafter, defendant was evaluated by two mental health professionals,
who found him unsuitable for outpatient sex-offender treatment and submitted
a written report to his probation officer so stating.  After a new sex-
offender outpatient program was formed in Windsor County in 1986, defendant
was screened again, and found suitable for participation in the new program.
In order to participate in this program, defendant was required to sign a
treatment contract.  Defendant testified that, prior to his signing the
contract, William Eck, a probation officer, explained "some words . . .
that I didn't understand . . . pertaining to this penile machine, and I told
him I didn't like that at all."  Eck testified that he explained the details
of the program to defendant before he signed the treatment contract,
including the possible use of the penile plethysmograph.  The contract
defendant signed included among treatment goals "identifying and changing
deviant behavior patterns," with the understanding that "I will be asked to
discuss these tasks and assignments in group treatment."  Defendant
testified that although he felt pressured, he signed the contract for the
new program on August 14, 1986, after consultation with his attorney, and
thereafter attended three of four orientation meetings beginning on August
21, 1986.  Defendant attended none of the actual treatment sessions after
the first one.
     In September 1986 defendant's attorney advised his probation officer
of what the attorney considered to be a suicidal risk for his client if he
continued therapy, and the officer scheduled an evaluation with Dr. William
LeBlanc at Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital to assess any potential suicidal
risk.  Defendant refused to meet with Dr. LeBlanc, and on October 16, 1986
his probation officer signed a violation-of-probation complaint.  Defendant
was arraigned on October 21, 1986, and on October 29, 1986, the court
ordered an evaluation by Dr. William Cunningham, a psychologist, whose
written report was submitted to the court.  Dr. Cunningham testified at the
probation-violation hearing that defendant objected to the sex-offender
treatment program because it was "immoral."  He said that defendant
characterized his conduct with his stepdaughter as "non-sexual."
     Defendant testified that at his first group therapy session he was
told he would be required to "rehash the whole incident in front of the
group," to fantasize "[a] sexual encounter with a female," and "to
masturbate and be hitched up to this penile machine."  He stated that
according to his religious belief fantasizing and masturbation are wrong.
     William Ballantine, a psychologist with experience in dealing with sex
offenders, testified for the State that group treatment and behavioral
treatment "are considered the two most effective treatments."  Mary Jane
Edgerton, a mental health consultant experienced in working with sex
offenders, corroborated the point:
              Q.  The treatment program at West Central that Mr.
         Emery went to the first meeting - is that primarily
         group therapy?

              A.  It is entirely group therapy with some
         adjunctive individual sessions.  The primary modality of
         treatment is group therapy.

              Q.  Do you have an opinion as to the preference of
         group therapy versus individual therapy?

              A.  Yes, probably two.  One, is that the presence
         of 10 people versus two people is more effective
         modality for accomplishing very confrontive work.  Very
         difficult work.

              Q.  That would be a confrontive kind of a modality
         at that point?

              A.  . . . You have to look at this from the point
         of view that many people find it difficult to discuss
         their sexual fantasizing if it's deviant.  They're
         frightened of it.  They are ashamed of it . . . and it's
         very helpful to have other people who are committed to
         the growth and change process to help another person who
         might be having difficulty.  Some people have real poor
         communication skills.  They've lived a lifetime of not
         discussing themselves.  They don't know how to do it.
         The power of the group to help them do that is very
         important. . . .

     Dr. Cunningham testified that "I don't think there's anybody in the
field that would dispute that group treatment for sex offenders is the
treatment of choice."                        
     Based on testimony of psychologists testifying for the State, the trial
court found that "[t]he group meetings are confrontive and people obtain
support from other group members.  Confrontive groups are the best method to
reduce recidivism in sexual offenders."  The court also found that "[t]he
use of a penile plethysmograph and masturbation are not required in the
group and the defendant was told these methods were not to be used in the
group."
     The trial court found that "[t]he main thrust of the defendant's
behavior is to avoid treatment and not to preserve a religious belief.
Consequently, it is concluded the defendant's religious belief upon which he
relies is not sincere.  It is just one more argument he utilizes to avoid
treatment."  Defendant testified that he had sought and obtained counseling
help on his own from two counselors in Massachusetts and the pastor of his
church.  He contended that the alternative treatment he received met the
need for rehabilitation and the State therefore had no power to impose a
program on him that offended his religious belief.  The court rejected the
argument that defendant's private counseling arrangements sufficed to
relieve him of the obligations of his probation contract, and concluded that
defendant was in violation of the December 1985 probation agreement.  The
present appeal followed.
                                    I.
     Defendant argues first that the revocation of his probation violates
his right to religious freedom under the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Chapter I, article 3 of the Vermont Constitution.
Generally, probation conditions are valid "if reasonably related to the
crime for which the defendant was convicted."  State v. Whitchurch, __ Vt.
__, __, 577 A.2d 690, 692 (1990); State v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205, 214, 576 A.2d 1246, 1251 (1990)(probation conditions must reasonably relate to
defendant's rehabilitation).  In Whitchurch we ruled that compliance with
the requirements set forth in the California case People v. Lent,