Title: State v. Turner

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Turner (2001-428); 175 Vt. 595; 830 A.2d 122

2003 VT 73

[Filed 17-Jul-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2003 VT 73

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-428

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2002

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
  Clayton Turner	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1347-8-00 Wmcr

                                                Trial Judge: David Suntag

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant Clayton Turner was convicted of aggravated assault
  following a jury trial in Windham District Court. Defendant appeals the
  court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for a new
  trial.  Defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motions
  because  (1) the State presented insufficient evidence that the knife used
  in the incident was a "deadly weapon"; (2) the trial court committed
  prejudicial error by allowing a witness to testify  that he was threatened
  by defendant's brother following a juror's request for clarification of the
  witness's testimony; and (3) the trial court failed to give the jury a
  proper limiting instruction regarding that witness's testimony.  We
  disagree and affirm. 

       ¶  2.  This appeal arises out of a dispute over a video game.  The
  record demonstrates that on July 2, 2000, defendant stabbed 14 year-old
  Kyle Wright in the leg with a knife after an unsuccessful attempt to borrow
  a video game.  Defendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly
  weapon under 13 V.S.A §1024(a)(2).  Following a two-day jury trial,
  defendant was convicted and subsequently sentenced to three to twelve years
  imprisonment.

       ¶  3.  During the course of the trial, several witnesses testified
  as to the facts of the incident, including Jason Bushey, who was present
  during the stabbing.  Prior to trial, Bushey stated to defendant's
  investigator that he did not witness the stabbing and signed a written
  statement to that effect.  Bushey also told the police that he did not know
  defendant or the victim.  At trial, Bushey testified that he saw defendant
  "get mad" and purposely stab Kyle Wright in the leg with a three inch long
  knife.  On direct examination, the State asked Bushey to explain his prior
  statements.  Bushey admitted he had lied previously because he did not
  "want any bodily harm to be caused to [him] for snitching on somebody," and
  that he had decided to testify truthfully because "it's not right that
  Clayton stabbed a 14-year-old kid over a video game."  Defense counsel did
  not object to this testimony.

       ¶  4.  Following Bushey's testimony, the court asked whether the
  jurors had questions for the witness. (FN1)  A juror requested
  clarification of Bushey's testimony regarding his fear of harm for
  "snitching."  Defense counsel objected to the juror's question, arguing
  that the potential testimony would be more prejudicial than probative.  The
  court overruled this objection, adjourned the jury upon the State's
  suggestion, and asked Bushey to clarify his previous testimony.  Bushey
  explained to the court that he was afraid of Kenneth Turner, defendant's
  brother.  Defense counsel renewed their objection to this testimony.  Upon
  further inquiry, Bushey claimed that Kenneth Turner threatened to  "put
  [Bushey] in the hospital" if Bushey "snitched" on his brother.  Bushey also
  stated that Kenneth Turner did not in any way indicate that defendant had
  prompted the threat.  Again, defense counsel objected to this testimony,
  which the court overruled, holding that the testimony was clearly
  probative.  Bushey then testified about Kenneth Turner's threats before the
  jury, explaining that these threats prompted his prior inconsistent
  statements. 

       ¶  5.  At the close of the State's case, defendant moved for
  judgment of acquittal pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 29(c), arguing that the State
  did not meet its burden in proving that defendant caused injury to Wright,
  and that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that defendant used a
  "deadly weapon."  The court denied these motions and charged the jury.  No
  objections were made to the jury instructions.  Defendant was convicted of
  aggravated assault.  Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal or a new
  trial notwithstanding the jury verdict in a post-verdict filing.  The court
  denied these motions.  This appeal followed.

       ¶  6.  On appeal, defendant raises three claims.  First, defendant
  claims that the State presented insufficient evidence that the knife used
  in the stabbing was a "deadly weapon" as defined by 13 V.S.A. § 1021(3),
  and that he is therefore entitled to a judgment of acquittal.  Second,
  defendant argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by
  allowing Bushey to explain that threats made by defendant's brother caused
  him to deny knowledge of the stabbing prior to trial.  Third, defendant
  claims the court's admission of Bushey's testimony and subsequent failure
  to give the jury a limiting instruction regarding the usage of that
  testimony warrants a new trial.  Defendant is incorrect.
   
       ¶  7.  Defendant first claims that he is entitled to a judgment of
  acquittal because the State failed to meet its burden in proving that the
  knife used in the stabbing was a "deadly weapon."  The standard of review
  for the denial of a V.R.Cr.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal is
  whether "the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State
  and excluding any modifying evidence, fairly and reasonably tends to
  convince a reasonable trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a
  reasonable doubt." State v. Delisle, 162 Vt. 293, 307,