Title: State v. Voorheis

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Voorheis (2002-478); 176 Vt. 265; 844 A.2d 794

2004 VT 10

[Filed 13-Feb-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 10

                                No. 2002-478

  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

  Patrick Voorheis	                         September Term, 2003

  Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

  Robert Simpson, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall
    Johnson, Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Karen R. Shingler, Burlington, for Defendant-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.   Defendant Patrick Voorheis appeals a jury
  conviction for attempting to promote a lewd performance by a child, in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2822, and for inciting another to commit a felony
  in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 7.  Defendant claims that the trial court erred
  in (1) denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquital; (2) denying
  motions for mistrial upon a State's witness and prosecutor comments
  relating to defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent; and (3)
  admitting hearsay evidence.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  Defendant was involved in an extra-marital affair with Lori
  Delisle, a single mother who resided with her two children:
  nineteen-year-old Jacques and thirteen-year-old Jennifer.  Jennifer suffers
  from developmental disabilities and cognitive limitations, which make her
  function at the level of a much younger child.  At the time some of the
  relevant events occurred, Jacques's girlfriend, Beth Brandolino, lived in
  Ms. Delisle's residence as well.

       ¶  3.  Defendant and Ms. Delisle communicated often via e-mail and
  through internet chat, or "instant messaging."  Ms. Brandolino testified
  that Ms. Delisle had shown her pictures of Jennifer naked, in her
  underwear, and in black lingerie.  Ms. Delisle told her that she had sent
  defendant some of the pictures.  Ms. Delisle repeated to Ms. Brandolino
  defendant's comments about Jennifer's body, and stated that she had bought
  the lingerie and taken those pictures at his request.  Ms. Brandolino
  testified that she was present when Ms. Delisle sent the lingerie pictures
  to defendant, and was able to observe the "instant messaging" response from
  defendant.  Ms. Brandolino further testified that Ms. Delisle talked about
  defendant wanting to take Jennifer's virginity, and about having a
  "threesome" with Jennifer and defendant.  Ms. Brandolino testified that she
  saw a picture of defendant's penis that he had sent addressed to both
  Jennifer and Ms. Delisle. 

       ¶  4.  Ms. Brandolino testified that, shortly after moving into her
  own residence in May 2000, she learned from Jacques that defendant was
  alone with Jennifer.  She testified that she was concerned about Jennifer's
  safety, so she, Jacques and a friend, Sarah French, went to Ms. Delisle's
  residence.  Soon after they entered the house, Jennifer came out of her
  mother's bedroom.  When asked what was she doing there, Jennifer said that
  she and defendant were lying in bed, that he was rubbing her back and had
  told her she was beautiful and "a princess." She stated that they went to
  the bedroom at defendant's suggestion.  The child did not seem in distress.
   
       ¶  5.  Defendant was charged with use and attempted use of a child
  in a sexual performance in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2822, and with
  incitement of another to commit a felony in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 7.  At
  trial, the State introduced evidence seized from Ms. Delisle's  home,
  including a computer system and discs which stored a number of photographs
  of Jennifer naked.  The computer forensic examination recovered text from
  "instant messaging" conversations between defendant and Ms. Delisle.  An
  expert witness testified for the State that "instant messaging" is not
  normally saved into a computer, and that to save it to floppy disks
  required a concerted effort.  The texts of the instant messaging contained
  very graphic and sexually explicit language.  In these conversations,
  defendant makes comments about Jennifer's appearance, suggests poses and
  requests more pictures.  Defendant and Ms. Delisle discuss a plan to let
  defendant have his own lewd photo shoot.  The plan involved finding a time
  when neither Jacques nor Ms. Brandolino would be present, and leaving
  Jennifer alone with defendant, which would allow him to groom the child's
  pubic's hair, costume, and pose the child in a manner that better displayed
  her genitals. 
   
       ¶  6.  Ms. Delisle was subpoenaed to testify.  At the time of
  defendant's trial, she had already been convicted of using her daughter in
  a sexual performance.  She stated that she had taken three nude photographs
  of Jennifer to educate Jennifer about her body, and that she sent them to
  defendant to get his advice on how to talk with Jennifer.  Ms. Delisle
  denied that defendant had suggested buying Jennifer lingerie and taking
  pictures.  She claimed she could not recall sending those pictures to
  defendant, or receiving defendant's naked photograph addressed to both her
  and Jennifer.  Ms. Delisle denied her comments regarding the pictures and
  defendant's sexual interest in Jennifer.  When asked about the chat
  messages saved in her computer, Ms. Delisle testified that she created a
  conversation in which defendant suggests giving Jennifer alcohol because
  she suspected that there were people using her computer without her
  permission and wanted to see if it would generate a response from them. 
  She also claimed that she had saved and edited other instant messages to
  put the defendant in a bad light.  Ms. Delisle asserted a lack of knowledge
  or recollection with respect to several relevant events.  

       ¶  7.  Defendant took the stand and denied having seen or known about
  the pictures until he was criminally charged.  He denied making the
  incriminating statements attributed to him, or having any feelings or
  sexual interest for the child.  Although he admitted that he was alone in
  the bedroom with Jennifer, he explained that he was using the telephone
  when she entered the room and that he merely put his arm around her.

       ¶  8.  At the close of the State's case, defendant sought dismissal of
  all charges for lack of sufficient evidence.  The trial court granted the
  motion as to the substantive offense of use of a child in a sexual
  performance, but allowed the case to go to the jury on the charges of
  inciting and attempt.  The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both
  charges.  Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, and this appeal
  followed.

       ¶  9.  Defendant first claims that the trial court abused its
  discretion by not dismissing the charges of incitement and attempt for lack
  of sufficient evidence.  According to defendant, the only evidence
  presented was the "instant messaging" text, which was retrieved from Ms.
  Delisle's computer, and which Ms. Delisle claimed to have edited. 
  Defendant compares this case to State v. Durenleau, 163 Vt. 8,