Title: State v. Perrillo

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_PERRILLO.92-202; 162 Vt. 566; 649 A.2d 1031


 [Filed 23-Sep-1994]

 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. 92-202


 State of Vermont                     Supreme Court

                                      On Appeal from
      v.                              District Court of Vermont,
                                      Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit


 Joseph Perrillo                      February Term, 1994


 Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J.

 Kevin R. Klamm, Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for
   plaintiff-appellee

 Robert Appel, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      MORSE, J.   Defendant appeals his conviction for two counts of lewd and
 lascivious conduct with a child, 13 V.S.A. { 2602 (maximum penalty five
 years). Defendant claims that the evidence supported a conviction on no more
 than one count.  He claims the sentence of five to ten years (2 1/2 to 5
 years consecutive on each count) doubled the allowable penalty intended by
 the legislature for the crime.   He further asserts that the trial court
 erred in (1) admitting evidence of sexual misconduct with another child, (2)
 instructing the jury to ignore part of defendant's explanation for leaving
 Vermont during his pretrial release, and (3) admitting hearsay to buttress
 the credibility of the victim.  We reverse and remand for a new trial.

 
                                     I.
      At the time of the incident, the victim, a 12-year-old girl, and her
 friend were spending the night on the living room floor at the residence of
 the friend's mother.  Defendant was staying overnight on the couch in the
 same room.  The victim testified that defendant
           picked me up and brought me onto the couch, and molested
           me. . . . [F]irst he rubbed my stomach, and then he went
           up and around my chest area, and then he went down my
           pants, . . . [a]nd then he took his hand out of my pants
           and then he just touched me outside of my pants.  [He
           touched me underneath my pants] [i]n my vaginal area.


 According to the victim, the incident lasted "about a few minutes or so."
      Count one charged defendant with violation of 13 V.S.A. { 2602 by
 placing his hand inside the victim's pants and rubbing his hand on her
 vulva.  Count two charged a violation of the same statute by putting his
 hand inside the victim's shirt and rubbing her chest.  Before trial
 defendant moved to dismiss the second count of lewd and lascivious conduct.
 He claimed that the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the State
 did not support two crimes.  The trial court denied the motion.
      The allowable number of counts under a criminal statute is determined
 by legislative intent.  Section 2602 prohibits:
           [A]ny lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body, or
           any part or member thereof, of a child under the age of
           sixteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing
           to, or gratifying the lust, passions or sexual desires
           of such person or of such child . . . .

 Because a single episode of sexual misconduct ordinarily involves the
 wrongdoer touching the victim more than once, Harrell v. State,