Title: State v. Forant

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Forant  (97-386); 168 Vt. 217; 719 A.2d 399

[Filed 21-Aug-1998]

       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.

                                 No. 97-386

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.						 District Court of Vermont
                                                 Unit No. 3, Lamoille Circuit
	
Brian Forant	                                 May Term, 1998

Alan W. Cook, J.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General,  Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney,
  Montpelier, for  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.  Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for the
  domestic assault of  his wife.  Defendant claims that (1) the trial court
  committed plain error when, while instructing the  jury, it made a
  contradictory statement that the State's burden of disproving self-defense
  was by a  preponderance of the evidence; and (2) the security measures
  taken by a victim of a crime and  expenses incurred by a victim in
  preparation of and participation in a trial are not authorized by  statute
  to be compensable as restitution.  We disagree as to the first issue and
  affirm defendant's  conviction.  We agree, however, that the restitution
  order was unauthorized.

       The evidence showed that at the time of the offense, defendant and
  Corinne Forant were  married with four children.  Upon returning home from
  work on the evening in question, defendant  and his wife had an argument
  over household issues.  While defendant was in a separate room, a  fight
  ensued between two of the children in Corinne's presence in the kitchen. 
  Corinne attempted  to discipline one of the children, but the child
  responded by biting her leg.  

  

  Corinne then attempted  to spank the child, but instead struck the child's
  arm.  Defendant entered the room and witnessed  his wife hitting the child. 
  Defendant then assaulted his wife by throwing her into a table, hitting 
  her head on the floor, and striking her chin.  Corinne Forant made numerous
  attempts to call the  police, which defendant thwarted.  At trial,
  defendant asserted a claim of self-defense and defense  of his child.  The
  court instructed the jury regarding self-defense in relevant part as
  follows:

    Since the evidence in this case does raise the issue of self-defense,
    the burden is on the State  to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
    acts of the defendant were not done in self-defense.  If the State fails
    to prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the  defendant
    did not act in self-defense, then the State has not met its burden of
    proving that  the use of force was unlawful and you must find the defendant
    not guilty.

    . . . Thus, in order to overcome the defendant's claim of
    self-defense, the State must prove  each of the following essential
    elements by a preponderance of the evidence: First, that the  defendant did
    not reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of immediate bodily 
    harm; second, that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of
    force was  necessary to avoid danger and; third, that the defendant did not
    use only that force which  was reasonably necessary to repel his attacker.

    . . . If you find that the State has established each of these
    elements beyond a reasonable  doubt, then you may find that the claim of
    self-defense has not been successfully  established."

(Emphasis added).

       The defense did not object to the jury instructions, and the jury
  returned a verdict of guilty.  Defendant was sentenced to not less than
  eleven and not more than twelve months, all suspended  except for sixty
  days on a work crew.

       At the sentencing hearing, the victim requested restitution for the
  following: (1) security  measures taken after the assault (the cost of
  changing her telephone number and for changing the  locks on her home,
  $115.00), and (2) expenses incurred due to meetings with the prosecutor's 
  office in preparation for trial and for attending court proceedings (lost
  wages due to missed work,  $499.20, child care costs, $312.00, and mileage
  expenses, $67.50).  Defendant argued that the  items requested were not
  proper subjects of restitution under the restitution statute.  The trial
  court  ordered restitution for all of what was requested, totalling
  $993.70.  

  

  Defendant now appeals,  challenging the conviction and the restitution
  order.

                                     I.

       Defendant first argues that the trial court committed error when it
  instructed the jury that the  State could disprove self-defense by a
  preponderance of the evidence.  We disagree.  When the  instructions are
  viewed in their entirety, defendant has failed to show that he was
  prejudiced by the  reference.

       Since the defendant failed to object to the jury instructions at
  trial, reversal is appropriate  only if the court below committed plain
  error.  See V.R.Cr.P. 30, 52(b); State v. Pelican, 160 Vt.  536, 538,