Title: State v. Jarry

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

ENTRY_ORDER.93-136; 161 Vt. 629; 641 A.2d 364

[Filed 28-Feb-1994]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-136

                             FEBRUARY TERM, 1994


 State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
      v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                   }          Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
                                   }
 Robert Jarry                      }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. 318-5-92Cacr


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      Defendant Robert Jarry was charged with engaging in a sexual act with a
 person under sixteen years of age in violation of 13 V.S.A. { 3252(a)(3).
 He was giving the fourteen-year-old victim a ride home in St. Johnsbury when
 he allegedly pulled into a parking lot, ordered her to remove her pants, and
 had intercourse with her.  A jury convicted him and he appeals.  We affirm.

      The only medical evidence came from Dr. Keith Fortier, a gynecologist
 whom the victim saw four days after the incident.  Dr. Fortier testified
 that because of the four-day time lapse, he "couldn't tell one way or the
 other from her exam" whether she had had intercourse on the night she
 claimed defendant assaulted her.

      Defendant's first claim on appeal is that the court erred in ruling
 that he could not elicit testimony from Dr. Fortier regarding the fact that
 the victim had chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease, and about other
 examination findings that might tend to show she had had sexual intercourse
 with other partners.  In the alternative, defendant claims the court erred
 in refusing to strike the doctor's testimony entirely and instruct the jury
 to disregard it.

      At trial, the defense asked Dr. Fortier if he had taken a chlamydia
 specimen from the victim, and the State objected.  Arguing before the court
 outside the hearing of the jury, the defense contended that the State had
 opened the door to cross-examination on the issue of chlamydia by having the
 doctor testify.  The testimony was probative, the defense argued, because
 defendant had tested negative for chlamydia almost four months after the
 alleged assault.  The State contended that it had not opened the door
 because it had not offered evidence that the victim was a virgin prior to
 the alleged assault, and that it offered the doctor's testimony to counter
 defense counsel's opening statement that "there are no corroborating bits of
 evidence that support [the victim's] description of what happened."  The
 State's position was that the doctor's findings on intercourse were

 

 probative to show the victim had been examined as part of a rape protocol
 and that intercourse on the night of the assault had not been ruled out.

      The court barred any inquiry into the victim's chlamydia under the
 Rape Shield Statute, 13 V.S.A. { 3255, because the testimony would bear on
 the victim's prior sexual conduct and was not included in any of the
 statutory exceptions.  See id. { 3255(a)(3).  During voir dire, Dr. Fortier
 testified that defendant's negative culture for chlamydia months after the
 assault would not lead to a conclusion one way or the other as to whether he
 had had intercourse with the victim on the night of the assault.  The court
 ruled that defendant had not shown that the probative value of the testimony
 on chlamydia outweighed its prejudicial effect to the victim.  See id.  For
 the same reason, the court barred the defense from exploring the victim's
 sexual history by questioning the doctor on other aspects of his examin-
 ation.  We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's disallowance of
 any line of questioning bearing on the victim's prior sexual conduct.  See
 State v. Lavalette, 154 Vt. 426, 428, 578 A.2d 108, 109 (1990) (trial court
 has discretion under 13 V.S.A. { 3255 to exclude evidence of prior sexual
 conduct).

      Defendant's reliance on State v. Messier, 146 Vt. 145,