Title: State v. Perez

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Perez (2005-045); 180 Vt. 388; 912 A.2d 944

2006 VT 53

[Filed 16-Jun-2006]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 16-Oct-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 53

                                No. 2005-045


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

  Michael Perez                                  March Term, 2006


  John P. Wesley, J.

  Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Tracy Kelly Shriver,
    Deputy State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

  Allison N. Fulcher and Erika Wright, Law Clerk (On the Brief) of Martin &
    Associates, Barre, for Defendant-Appellant.
   

  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and
            Kupersmith, D.J.,  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   Defendant Michael Perez appeals from his
  conviction, after a jury trial, of aiding in aggravated murder in violation
  of 13 V.S.A. §§ 3, 2301, 2311(a).  He argues that: (1) the trial court
  erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense of
  voluntary manslaughter; (2) the court's instruction on accomplice liability
  was inadequate and misleading; (3) there was insufficient evidence to
  support his conviction; (4) the court erred in denying his motion for
  individual and sequestered voir dire; and (5) the court erred by failing to
  sequester the jury during deliberations.  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  The record reveals the following.  In July 2002, defendant was
  charged with aiding in aggravated murder based on information that he aided
  in the intentional killing of Gregg Enos and Colleen Davis.  The victims'
  bodies were discovered on June 25, 2002, in Enos's pickup truck in the
  Mollie Beattie State Forest in Grafton, Vermont.  Enos died from multiple
  stab wounds to his head and torso.  His body was found upside down on the
  driver's side of the truck, under the steering wheel.  Davis was found
  partially inside the cab of the truck, bent somewhat at the waist through a
  small window in the back of the cab.  Her upper torso and head were resting
  on a tire in the open, back part of the truck.  She died from blunt trauma
  to the head.

       ¶  3.  At the scene, police found a long tree limb with a piece of red
  cloth wrapped around its end, resting on the back of Davis's skull.  The
  cloth was burnt, and it contained Enos's blood.  Another piece of burnt red
  cloth, also containing Enos's blood, was found protruding from the truck's
  gas tank.  Both pieces of cloth were  part of a red "Fat Albert" t-shirt
  that defendant had been observed wearing on the day of the murders.  Police
  also discovered a rock with Davis's blood on it near a picnic table at the
  campsite. 
   
       ¶  4.  Police encountered defendant and Charles Sherman at the
  murder scene the day the bodies were discovered.  Defendant, who is black,
  was twenty years old at the time of the murders and he was living with the
  Sherman family.  Sherman, who is white, was in his early forties. 
  Defendant told police that he and Sherman wanted to retrieve their truck,
  which had gotten stuck in the state forest the previous evening.  Defendant
  initially stated that he and Sherman had walked home after their truck got
  stuck.  He later said that he and Sherman caught a ride to Bellows Falls in
  a dark brown or black pickup truck. 

       ¶  5.  Defendant gave another statement to police later that evening. 
  He reiterated that he and Sherman caught a ride in a pickup truck.  He
  denied any involvement in the murders.  Defendant told police that after
  catching a ride into Bellows Falls, he and Sherman got drunk and went to
  sleep.  He said that on the day of the murders, Sherman wore a red shirt,
  while he wore a white one.  He denied that he and Sherman had a knife in
  their truck that day, despite testimony from several witnesses to the
  contrary.

       ¶  6.  Several days later, defendant told police that Sherman killed
  both victims.  He recounted the following story.  He and Sherman were very
  intoxicated.  They went joyriding in the state forest until their truck got
  stuck.  They started walking back to Bellows Falls and caught a ride with
  Enos and Davis.  After stopping to buy beer and snacks, they all decided to
  return to the state forest to party.  At some point, Enos and Sherman left
  the campsite to look at the stuck truck, and defendant had consensual sex
  with Davis on the picnic table.  Enos and Sherman returned while this was
  occurring, which angered Enos.  Defendant calmed things down, and the group
  started drinking together again.  When Enos and Davis got ready to leave,
  Enos made a parting comment to defendant, calling him a "nigger."  This
  angered Sherman, who began arguing with Enos.  Defendant described himself
  as "frozen."  

       ¶  7.  According to defendant, Sherman grabbed a stick out of
  defendant's hands and hit Enos with it.  Sherman then tried to move Enos's
  body and asked defendant for help.  Enos sprang up and ran to the truck. 
  Sherman chased Enos and stabbed him.  Defendant did not know that Sherman
  had a knife.  
   
       ¶  8.  Eventually, Sherman, defendant, and Davis went to Enos's
  truck.  The truck was too bloody to drive.  Sherman asked defendant to help
  him move Enos's body into the truck.  Sherman then told Davis to get into
  the truck, which she did.  She tried to climb out of the truck's back
  window and Sherman hit her with a stick and a beer bottle while defendant
  left and went inside a  camp building at the site.  Sherman later came into
  the camp building, threw his shirt and keys into the fire, and told
  defendant to wrap his shirt around the tree limb and light it.  Sherman lit
  the shirt, stuck it into the truck, and the two men left the scene.

       ¶  9.  After giving this statement, defendant led police to evidence
  that he and Sherman had discarded.  En route, he repeated portions of his
  story.  He reiterated that Sherman became angry when Enos used a racial
  slur, and he stated that Sherman responded by saying "that's my nigger, not
  yours."  Defendant indicated that he was scared Sherman would kill him.  He
  told police that he and Sherman filled their clothes and shoes with rocks
  and threw them into the river.  He also stated that they had planned to go
  to the state forest the following day, remove the tree limb, and pretend to
  discover the bodies.  Defendant repeated that Sherman was very drunk that
  day and falling down due to his intoxicated state.  

       ¶  10.  Several days after giving the first statement, defendant
  provided police with a slightly different version of events.  Contrary to
  his initial story, defendant said that Sherman told him to hit Davis with
  the tree limb, which he pretended to do.  
   
       ¶  11.  Defendant testified on his own behalf at trial, recounting
  another slightly different version of events.  The State introduced
  defendant's various statements to police, in addition to other evidence. 
  Several witnesses also testified that defendant told them that he raped
  Davis before killing her and that he "beat the dude and stabbed the bitch
  fifty-seven times."  The jury found defendant guilty of aiding in
  aggravated murder, and this appeal followed.

       ¶  12.  Defendant first argues that the jury should have been
  instructed on a lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. 
  According to defendant, ample evidence supported his assertion that the
  killings were prompted by Enos's use of a racial slur.  Defendant maintains
  that, based on the evidence, the jury could have determined that Sherman
  got violent and aggressive when he drank, Sherman and defendant had been
  drinking most of the day, Sherman was upset when Enos called defendant a
  "nigger," and, in a drunken rage, Sherman lost control and attacked and
  killed Enos.  Defendant also points to the existence of a "sloppy" crime
  scene as evidence that the murders were the result of sudden provocation.  

       ¶  13.  Assuming for present purposes that voluntary manslaughter, or
  "aiding in voluntary manslaughter," can be a lesser-included offense of
  aiding in aggravated murder, we find no error in the trial court's refusal
  to instruct the jury on this offense.  While it is true that, "[a]s a
  general rule, a criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed
  on all lesser-included offenses," the instruction need be given only "if
  the facts in evidence reasonably support such an instruction."  State v.
  Delisle, 162 Vt. 293, 301,