Title: State v. Gulley

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. 89-227


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Robert J. Gulley                             Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

                                             April Term, 1990


Robert Grussing III, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Susan R. Harritt, Assistant Attorney
   General, and Gayle Middleton, Law Clerk (On the Brief), Montpelier, for
   plaintiff-appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate
   Defender, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     GIBSON, J.   Defendant Robert J. Gulley appeals from the district
court's exclusion of his mother's testimony at a suppression hearing and
the court's subsequent denial of his motion to suppress statements in which
he admitted to having stolen $1300.  We affirm.
                                    I.
     Upon learning that defendant might have been involved in the theft of
$1300 from a bus driver, Bennington Police Officer William Derosia called
the Gulley household on several occasions to arrange an interview with
defendant at the police station.  In response to those calls, defendant's
mother drove her nineteen-year-old son to the station during regular
business hours, where he was questioned by Officer Derosia.  The testimony
is conflicting as to what exactly Officer Derosia said to defendant over the
telephone and at the station before Miranda warnings were given and as to
whether defendant's mother was present during the entire interview.
     Upon defendant's arrival at the station, Officer Derosia informed
defendant that he wanted to talk about the theft of some money from a bus
driver.  The officer explained the evidence against defendant and the
potential penalties involved.  When defendant attempted to confess to the
theft, Officer Derosia interrupted him in order to give Miranda warnings.
After the warnings were read, defendant confessed to the theft and then
signed a written statement detailing his confession.  Defendant's mother
also signed the Miranda form and the statement; however, there is dis-
agreement over the point at which the mother joined her son and Officer
Derosia.  Defendant claims that halfway through the warnings he asked the
officer if he could see his mother and, at that point, he and Officer
Derosia went outside to bring defendant's mother into the station.
     Approximately two months later, after being cited for grand larceny,
defendant filed a motion seeking suppression of the oral and written
statements made to Officer Derosia.  At the suppression hearing, defense
counsel attempted to call defendant's mother to the stand following the
testimony of Officer Derosia and defendant.  The court refused to allow
defendant's mother to testify because she had been present in the courtroom
throughout the prior testimony and defense counsel had not informed the
State that she would be testifying at the hearing.  A pretrial order had
mandated that defendant list all witnesses expected to testify at trial, but
no request or order for the sequestration of witnesses preceded the court's
ruling at the suppression hearing.  Defendant did not object to the exclu-
sion of his mother's testimony at the time of the court's ruling, nor did he
subsequently move to reopen the evidence; however, a week after the hearing,
he filed an offer of proof regarding her testimony together with his
requested findings of fact.  Thereafter, the court denied the motion to
suppress, whereupon defendant entered a conditional plea of no contest.
     On appeal, defendant argues that (1) the trial court's exclusion of his
mother's testimony violated the United States and Vermont Constitutions; (2)
the court failed to make adequate findings regarding certain disputed
facts; and (3) the court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress.
                                    II.
     Defendant first contends that the court's exclusion of his mother's
testimony violated state law as well as his right to present witnesses under
the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution.  We reject these
contentions since defendant has failed to show that the court's ruling
prejudicially affected his substantial rights.  See V.R.Cr.P. 52(a).
     At the request of a party or upon its own motion, the trial court may
order the exclusion of witnesses so they cannot hear the testimony of other
witnesses.  V.R.E. 615.  As noted, in this case neither party requested a
separation of witnesses, and the court never made a sequestration order.  In
its pretrial discovery order, issued prior to the suppression hearing, the
court ordered the defense attorney to disclose to the prosecuting attorney
the names of all witnesses to be called at trial.  Apparently, defendant's
mother was not on the list provided; in any event, the State did not expect
defendant to call her to testify at the suppression hearing.
     Neither the Sixth Amendment nor Chapter I, Article 10 forbids
preclusion of the testimony of a surprise witness as a discovery sanction,
in appropriate circumstances.  See Taylor v. Illinois,