Title: State v. VanDusen

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Vandusen  (96-120); 166 Vt. 240; 691 A.2d 1053

[Filed 31-Jan-1997]

       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. 96-120

State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Addison District Court

Scott C. VanDusen                                 November Term, 1996

Matthew I. Katz, J.

       John T. Quinn, Addison County State's Attorney, Middlebury, and
  Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

       Peter F. Langrock and Lisa B. Shelkrot of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
  Middlebury, for defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   On May 31, 1995, Frederick Bennett was informed that
  several hundred feet of stainless steel pipe were missing from his barn in
  Shoreham.  The steel pipe was traced to defendant Scott VanDusen, an
  employee at a farm in Addison.  In August 1995, defendant was charged in a
  one-count information with felony possession of stolen property valued at
  approximately $4,500, in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2561.  Upon defendant's
  motion, the court reduced the charge to a misdemeanor, having found that
  the "only evidence is poss[ession] of 18" pieces; hence [of] little value." 
  Defendant waived the right to trial by jury, and after a court trial, was
  found guilty of misdemeanor possession of stolen property.  Defendant was
  sentenced to serve three months in jail, to pay a fine of $1,000, and to
  pay restitution of $4,000.  The issues on appeal are (1) whether the
  evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of possession of
  stolen property valued at less than $500, (2) whether restitution is
  limited to the amount in the charge on which defendant was found guilty,
  and (3) whether the evidence is

 

  sufficient to support the restitution order.  We affirm.

       In December 1994, Bennett installed in his barn 500-700 feet of
  two-inch, stainless steel pipe, some of it new, and some of it used.  The
  pipe was stolen from Bennett's barn between May 26 and May 31, 1995. 
  According to the district court's written findings of fact, the pipe was
  "readily identifiable by the blue markings" of the person who installed it. 
  Bennett conducted his own investigation of the theft and located the pipe,
  cut into short pieces of scrap, at Rutland Waste and Metal Company.  A
  salesperson at Rutland Waste and Metal testified that she bought the scrap
  metal in July 1995 for $76 and was able to identify defendant as the
  seller. The court also found that, during the month of June, defendant was
  in possession of a chop saw that he borrowed from his employer without his
  employer's permission.  The court concluded that defendant had been in
  possession of the steel pipe when it was in long pieces, that he had
  knowledge the pipe was stolen, and that he had used his employer's chop saw
  to cut the pipe into small pieces.

       Defendant's first claim of error is that there was insufficient
  evidence to support his conviction.  We will affirm the conviction if the
  "evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, fairly and
  reasonably supports the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  State
  v. Derouchie, 140 Vt. 437, 441,