Title: State v. Oscarson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Oscarson (2004-545); 179 Vt. 442; 898 A.2d 123

2006 VT 30

[Filed 14-Apr-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 30

                                No. 2004-545


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

  Elsie Oscarson                                 January Term, 2006


  Edward J. Cashman, J.


  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and John Treadwell, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Allison N. Fulcher of Martin & Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  Defendant Elsie Oscarson appeals from a district
  court order denying her motion for sentence reconsideration pursuant to
  Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a).  Defendant argues that her
  sentence is illegal because she was sentenced for aggravated sexual assault
  when the elements found by the jury support a conviction only for sexual
  assault, a crime with a lesser potential punishment.  We hold that
  defendant's sentence is not illegal under Rule 35(a) because it is
  consistent with the conviction of aggravated sexual assault.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  This case arises because Vermont has two separate sexual
  assault crimes, each involving minor victims, with overlapping elements. 
  The crime of sexual assault on a minor has a maximum penalty of 35 years of
  imprisonment. 13 V.S.A. § 3252(b).  The crime of aggravated sexual assault
  on a minor has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.  13 V.S.A. §
  3253(b).  The significant difference in the elements of the crimes for
  purposes of this case is the requisite age of the victim.  The crime of
  sexual assault on a minor requires that the victim be under the age of
  sixteen.  13 V.S.A. § 3252(b).  The crime of aggravated sexual assault on a
  minor requires that the victim be under the age of ten.  13 V.S.A. §
  3253(a)(8).

       ¶  3.  In this case, it is undisputed that both victims were under the
  age of ten at the time of the offense.  Nevertheless, the State chose
  initially to charge defendant with only sexual assault pursuant to § 3252. 
  During the course of the case, however, the State moved to amend the
  charges to aggravated sexual assault on each victim in violation of § 3253. 
  At the hearing on the motion, both the prosecutor and defense counsel
  stated erroneously that this amendment did not change the elements of the
  offense. 

       ¶  4.  At trial, the jury instructions on the elements of aggravated
  sexual assault stated that the jury needed to find that the victims were
  under the age of sixteen, not ten as required by   3253(a)(8).  Defendant
  did not object to the jury instructions.  The jury found defendant guilty
  of aggravated sexual assault with respect to both minor victims, and the
  district court imposed two consecutive sentences of imprisonment of 35
  years to life, but suspended the sentence on one count.  Defendant appealed
  both convictions, but she did not raise the accuracy of the jury
  instructions or the validity of the sentences.  This Court affirmed the
  conviction for one count of aggravated sexual assault, but reversed the
  conviction for the count of aggravated sexual assault for which defendant's
  sentence had been suspended.  State v. Oscarson, 2004 VT 4, 176 Vt. 176,