Title: In re Ringler

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-198


 In re Donald Ringler                         Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
                                              Windham Superior Court

                                              November Term, 1991


 Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

 Robert Katims and David Venman, Legal Intern, of Martin & Paolini, Barre,
   for petitioner-appellee

 Karen R. Carroll, Windham County Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for
   respondent-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      Gibson, J.  The State appeals a superior court order vacating
 petitioner Donald Ringler's conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct with
 a child, 13 V.S.A. { 2602.  After a post-conviction-relief hearing, 13
 V.S.A. { 7133, the court found that petitioner had received ineffective
 assistance of counsel at trial to his prejudice.  The State argues (1) that
 the court improperly considered counsel's failure to preserve an
 evidentiary objection for review on appeal, (2) that the evidence did not
 establish that counsel's conduct was unreasonable, and (3) that the court
 failed to make an essential finding regarding the probable outcome of the
 trial had counsel acted differently.  We reverse and remand on the basis of
 the last claim.
                                     I.
      Petitioner was convicted in 1988 of lewd and lascivious conduct with a
 child for allegedly touching the child's penis and inserting his tongue into
 the child's mouth.  Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court had
 improperly excluded cross-examination that would have revealed that the
 child himself was under investigation for improper sexual behavior at the
 time he made the complaint against defendant.  We agreed that the court
 should have allowed the questioning because it was relevant to the child's
 credibility, State v. Ringler, 153 Vt. 375, 378, 571 A.2d 668, 669-70
 (1989), but denied relief because counsel had not properly informed the
 trial court of the basis for his proposed cross-examination, and because its
 exclusion was not sufficiently prejudicial to constitute plain error.  Id.
 at 378-79, 571 A.2d  at 670.
      Petitioner next sought post-conviction relief, claiming violation of
 his state and federal constitutional rights on the basis of ineffective
 assistance of counsel.  He called three witnesses -- himself, his trial
 counsel, and another attorney as an expert witness -- to show numerous
 failures on the part of counsel.  The State called no witnesses.  The court
 granted relief, concluding, "[W]e cannot say that the ineffective
 assistance provided by defendant's counsel was harmless error beyond a
 reasonable doubt."
                                     II.
         The State argues first that the court should not have considered
 evidence concerning counsel's failure to preserve an objection to the
 exclusion of his proposed cross-examination.  Citing In re Kasper, 142 Vt.
 31,