Title: State v. Penn

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Penn  (2002-520); 176 Vt. 565; 845 A.2d 313

2003 VT 110

[Filed 11-Dec-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 110

                     SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO.  2002-520

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2003

  State of Vermont                  }     APPEALED FROM:
                                    }
                                    }
       v.                           }     District Court of Vermont,
                                    }     Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit
  Gregory Penn                      }
                                    }     DOCKET NO.  1517-11-01 BnCr

  Trial Judge: David A. Howard

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1   Defendant appeals his conviction on one count of lewd and
  lascivious conduct and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a
  child.  Defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error by
  failing to enter a judgment of acquittal, on its own motion, because (1)
  the evidence did not establish that defendant willfully committed a lewd
  act upon the alleged child victim, and (2) the state failed to prove that
  the contact with the alleged adult victim was lewd and lascivious. 
  Defendant makes these claims for the first time on appeal, and in spite of
  the fact that his defense at trial was predicated exclusively on the theory
  that defendant was not the perpetrator.  We affirm.

       ¶ 2   On June 20, 2002, after a two day jury trial, Gregory Penn
  was convicted of one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child in
  violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2602 and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct
  in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2601.  Specifically, defendant was convicted of
  licking the toes and touching the vaginal area of A.M., a ten-year-old
  girl, and unbuttoning and unzipping the pants of her mother while
  attempting to place his hands inside mother's pants.  

       ¶ 3   A group of friends, including A.M.'s mother, A.M. and
  defendant, assembled at Angela Daniels' apartment on August 5, 2002.  The
  adult guests drank beer for most of the day and into the night.  After
  consuming alcohol and some anti-anxiety medication, A.M.'s mother decided
  that it would be better for her and her two daughters to remain at the
  apartment for the night instead of attempting to walk home.  

       ¶ 4   A.M., her sister M.M. and their mother went to sleep on a
  couch in the living room.  Mother and M.M. slept on one end of the couch,
  while A.M. slept at the other.  Defendant was present in the living room at
  the time that A.M. and her mother retired to the couch.  A.M. testified
  that defendant was seated in a rocking chair approximately three and one
  half feet from the couch.  Some time later, A.M. awoke to find defendant
  licking her feet and in between her toes.  A.M. testified that defendant
  proceeded to rub her vaginal area over her clothes, and attempted to place
  his hand up her shorts, but was unable to do so because they were too
  tight.  When defendant tried to unbutton A.M.'s pants, she rolled over and
  squeezed her legs together tightly.  Defendant tried to pull her leg, but
  she pushed back. 

       ¶ 5   Defendant then turned his attention to mother.  A.M. watched
  as defendant unbuttoned and unzipped her mother's pants.  A.M. asked
  defendant what he was doing.  He responded "nothing" and told A.M. to go
  back to sleep.  Defendant then retreated to the rocking chair as A.M.
  attempted to wake her mother up, but was unable to fully do so because her
  mother was extremely groggy from the drugs and alcohol she had consumed. 
  Defendant then moved into the kitchen to retrieve his beer from the
  refrigerator.  A.M. recognized defendant in the light cast by the open
  refrigerator.

       ¶ 6   Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of
  the State's case on grounds that the State had failed to present sufficient
  evidence identifying defendant as the person who committed the acts
  charged.  The court denied this motion after noting the evidence that
  supported A.M.'s identification of defendant as the perpetrator.  The
  court, after observing on the record that the other elements of the charges
  were not specifically challenged, then stated that it would "find that
  there is sufficient evidence on the other issues in that if someone did
  touch A[.]M[.] and [her mother] in a manner testified to that that would be
  behavior punishable under these two counts."  Defendant subsequently filed
  two more motions for judgment of acquittal, one after the close of the
  evidence and one after the jury delivered its verdict.  The sole ground for
  both motions, which the court denied, was again that the State failed to
  present sufficient evidence identifying defendant as the person who touched
  A.M. and her mother.  

       ¶ 7   Defendant willingly concedes that he did not present to the
  trial court either of the arguments pressed on appeal; therefore we review
  them under the plain error standard.  State v.  Roy, 151 Vt. 17, 23, 557 A.2d 884, 888 (1989); see V.R.Cr.P. 52(b).  "Plain error exists only in
  exceptional circumstances where a failure to recognize error would result
  in a miscarriage of justice, or where there is glaring error so grave and
  serious that it strikes at the very heart of the defendant's constitutional
  rights."  State v.  Pelican, 160 Vt. 536, 538,