Title: State v. Green

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Green (2005-023); 180 Vt. 544; 904 A.2d 87

2006 VT 64

[Filed 30-Jun-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 64

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-023

                              MARCH TERM, 2006

  State of Vermont                   }           APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
       v.                            }           District Court of Vermont
                                     }           Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
  Elijah Green                       }
                                     }           DOCKET NO. 223-1-03 CnCr

                                                 Trial Judge:  Michael S. 
                                                               Kupersmith

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of
  selling heroin and one count of selling cocaine.  He appeals the
  convictions on the ground that the court's jury instructions allowed him to
  be convicted without assuring a unanimous verdict, in violation of his
  constitutional rights.  We do not find plain error in the court's
  instructions and affirm.

       ¶  2.  Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of selling
  heroin, in violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4233(b)(2), and one count of selling
  cocaine, in violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4231(b)(1).  The charges were based on
  three drug sales the State alleged defendant made to an informant for the
  Vermont State Police. The informant originally told the police that the
  sales were made by defendant in a car driven by a third party.  At trial,
  the informant testified, however, that defendant drove the car and that the
  drug sales were made by the third party.  

       ¶  3.    Under Vermont law, a principal and an accomplice are
  equally culpable.  State v. Millette, 173 Vt. 596, 597,