Title: State v. Nunez

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.92-467; 162 Vt. 615; 647 A.2d 1006



                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 92-467

                              MARCH TERM, 1994


 State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                   }          Unit No. 1, Windsor District
                                   }
 Albert Nunez                      }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. 1804/6-11-88 WrCr


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Defendant Albert Nunez was charged with two counts of burglary, and
 one of simple assault, all arising out of his actions in response to the
 failure of his intimate relationship with Deborah Falzarano.  One burglary
 occurred at the home of Ms. Falzarano and the other at the home of her
 sister.  The simple assault occurred during a meeting between defendant and
 Falzarano.  Defendant appeals from his conviction on all three counts.  We
 affirm.

      Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in failing to sever
 the two burglary counts.  The trial court denied the motion to sever because
 the burglaries were part of a common plan to extract revenge against
 Falzarano, as alleged by the State.  Notwithstanding the merits of
 defendant's argument, defendant failed to renew his severance motion at the
 close of the evidence as required by V.R.Cr.P. 14(b)(4)(B).  Consequently,
 he has waived his right to raise the issue on appeal.  See State v. Venman,
 151 Vt. 561, 566-67, 564 A.2d 574, 578-79 (1989) (failure to renew motion to
 sever at close of evidence, when all relevant facts known, waives any right
 to argue severance on appeal).

      Second, defendant argues that the court erred in admitting a statement
 made by defendant to Reverend George Abetti.  During a telephone
 conversation initiated by defendant, Reverend Abetti, Falzarano's minister,
 informed defendant that Falzarano's home had been burglarized, to which
 defendant replied:  "Well, to tell you the truth, I was only trying to scare
 the hell out of her."  Defendant sought to have this statement excluded
 under V.R.E. 505(b), which provides that "[a] person has a privilege to . .
 . prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person
 to a clergyman in his professional character as a spiritual adviser."
 Defendant bore the burden of demonstrating that his statement to Reverend
 Abetti was a privileged one.  See State v. Kennison, 149 Vt. 643, 648,