Title: In re Harris

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Harris  (94-658); 164 Vt 628; 671 A.2d 1278

[Filed 22-Dec-1995]


                               ENTRY ORDER
                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 94-658
                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1995





In re Donald Harris                  }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     Chittenden Superior Court
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S980CnC



                    In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Petitioner appeals the Chittenden Superior Court's denial of his
  petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the court erred in
  concluding that he waived his right to be present for jury voir dire.  We
  affirm.

       Petitioner was charged with sexual assault upon, and lewd and
  lascivious conduct with, a minor.  He was convicted, and the conviction was
  affirmed.  He then filed this petition for post-conviction relief alleging
  that he was absent from a portion of the jury voir dire at his trial.

       On the first day of petitioner's trial, jury voir dire was conducted
  in open court with petitioner present.  On the following morning,
  petitioner's attorney moved for a mistrial, asserting as grounds media
  reports that an investigator for defense counsel had threatened or
  intimidated a witness.  The trial court heard arguments on the motion at an
  in-chambers hearing. The transcript of the in-chambers proceeding is
  missing, but petitioner's attorney testified that the court then proceeded
  to conduct individual voir dire concerning the media reports.


       Petitioner had informed his attorney of his desire to be present at
  all stages of his trial whenever permissible but understood that such
  involvement did not include chambers conferences involving strictly legal
  matters.  He indicated his desire to be present at the hearing on the
  motion for a mistrial but was told by his attorney to wait in the hallway. 
  When the court proceeded to conduct individual voir dire, petitioner's
  attorney did not ask the court if petitioner could be present, or object
  because of his absence, or inform petitioner that the voir dire would be
  conducted.  Although the transcripts are ambiguous, petitioner's attorney
  testified that she exercised petitioner's peremptory challenges in open
  court after first discussing them with him.

       We do not address whether petitioner waived his right to be present
  for jury voir dire because the facts of this case do not support
  post-conviction relief.  To obtain post-conviction relief, the petitioner
  must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that fundamental errors
  rendered his conviction defective.  State v. Bristol, 159 Vt. 334, 337, 618 A.2d 1290, 1291 (1992).  We have also said that petitioner must prove he
  was prejudiced by the trial court's action.  In re Kivela, 145 Vt. 454,
  458,